3 ms·
Dang, not even Spotify care enough to not write AI slop articles. We’re fucked.
by avazhi 29d ago
Dang, not even Spotify care enough to not write AI slop articles.
We’re fucked.
- blehn 29d agoTo be fair, Spotify was a slop factory long before LLMs started doing it
- prmoustache 29d agoThey are in the business of selling audio slop streams, why are you surprised?
- florians 29d agoTrue
- stephbook 29d agoI could only read one sentence, then skipped to another paragraph. Sure enough the scroll bar revealed a suspiciously long article. No human would ever write this much bland bullshit. Next sentence was also an AI juxtaposition. Done.
- vagabund 29d agoYeah, stopped reading after the first paragraph. It's really so disrespectful to your audience.
- florians 29d agoIt‘s someone from R&D probably not so official
- lowbloodsugar 29d agoSpotify? The company pushing AI “music” into people’s feeds to save money on royalties? That Spotify?
- pmontra 29d agoI noticed > The modes are the load-bearing piece: Why do people write like LLMs? Maybe they delegate all the work to a LLM and don't have the time or the will to edit the copy. How about telling another LLMs to replace at least the most common LLM patterns with something human looking?
- eterm 29d agoI don't feel like this was a piece by someone who has used LLMs too much. I'm fairly confident this is just LLM writing the majority, possibly tweaked by a human. Opening line is a form of, "It's not X, it's Y": ".. isn't thinking. It's I/O". Then the start of the second paragraph is that weird breathless kind of writing: > Reading five files to answer a question about one method. Generating a test file that follows the exact same pattern as the twenty test files next to it. More "It's not X, it's Y": The seat license isn't what hurts, it's the tokens. The softly pressed insistence that AI is worth it, really: "The tooling pays for itself but only if..."
- kristianp 29d agoThey should use their portal to de-claude the writing.