At the end: "Thank you to GPT 4o and o4 for discussions, research, and drafting."

At first I thought that was a nice way to handle credit, but on further thought I wonder if this is necessary because the base line assumption is that everyone is using LLMs to help them write.

▲

xandrius 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, I don't remember ever thanking the spellchecker anything in the past. Maybe we are kinder to technology nowadays that we even credit it?

Thank you to Android for mobile Internet connectivity, browsing, and typing.

	▲	labrador 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		A counter point is that googling "thank you linux" turns up a lot of hits. "thank you linux for opening my eyes to a bigger world" is a typical comment.

▲

svachalek 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

As soon as that's my baseline assumption, I think I'm done with the internet. I can get LLM slop on my own.

▲

labrador 6 days ago | parent [-]

I thought the article was well written. I'm assuming the author did most of the writing because it didn't sound like AI slop. I also assume he meant he uses AI to assist, not as the main driver.

▲

jacquesm 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

It really wasn't well written. I contains factual errors that stand out like lighthouses showing the author had an idea about an article but doesn't actually know the material.

▲

xpe 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I contains (sic) factual errors that stand out like lighthouses showing the author had an idea about an article but doesn't actually know the material.

Whoops ^ To be fair, technically, I also contain some factual errors, if you consider the rare genetic mutation or botched DNA transcription.

So far, I haven't found anything that I would consider to be a glaring factual error. What did I miss?

I'm not talking merely about a difference in imagination of how the past might have unfolded. If you view this as an alternative history, I think the author made a plausible case. Certainly not the only way; reasonable people can disagree.

	▲	jacquesm 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry about that 't'. It was (very) late.

▲

labrador 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I meant it was readable. It's speculative but it's well-informed speculation, not clueless nonsense. I agree that fact checking becomes more important because LLMs hallucinate. I feel the same about vibe coding. If you don't know much about programming then running vibe code is a risky bet (depending on the criticality of the problem)

▲

pavpanchekha 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Author here, in fact all the words you read I wrote, LLMs are not very good at writing.

	▲	labrador 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		That matches my experience too.