3 ms·
At this point, are we sharing these AI-written articles to make fun of how bad they are? Is there any substance left to discuss? > When the panel proposes a ch
by terabytest 2mo ago
At this point, are we sharing these AI-written articles to make fun of how bad they are? Is there any substance left to discuss?
> When the panel proposes a change to the file, the Änderungen prüfen modal opens first.
This is in the first section. If they never bothered to proofread their article, how is it worth the time it takes to read it?
I’m not being facetious. It’s becoming extremely hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Every piece of software looks and reads like a homogenous pile of Claudisms. Even if the software in question is good, I immediately lose trust in the developer’s good faith when I see stuff like this.
- pssah4 2mo agoThanks for the pointer - but nope, you're not right. I actually proof read what I publish, but I missed this one. As I said, I built this for myself as a learning project, in German. Then I decided to share it, which meant: deliver it in English for a broader audience. Yes, I use AI to generate documentation and translation. But don't judge me by that. Actually I am building and sharing, judge me by the quality of the tool.
- terabytest 2mo agoI apologize if this came across as an attack. I would just say that in a sea of slop, it’s really hard to invest the time it takes to judge the quality of an individual tool, and you might develop heuristics to survive. One useful heuristic is whether the documentation looks written by AI or not, because the level of attention paid to documentation often mirrors what you’d find in terms of software quality. If you want to stand out, you have to look like you’ve invested the time and effort to communicate to your reader that what you wrote is worth their precious time.
- pssah4 2mo agofair point, thanks for that advise!