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.