▲ | contrarian1234 6 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
why is that a problem..? Maybe the author is ESL or just not very good at writing... If it's clearer and the information is still all correct - then isn't that great? More people can engage in clear communication with each other | |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | orbital-decay 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
>and the information is still all correct That's a pretty big if in technical writeups like this, all you do by rewriting those is obfuscate the actual inputs you had. Was is generated from scattered notes? Entirely vibe-written? How many details are actually verified to be correct by a human? Seeing how even the structure seems generated, it's clear that there was little input, and I'm not sure about any of the above. I can deal with poor writing, and in case of ESL it's enough to tell the LLM to proofread/rephrase the piece (and check it yourself afterwards). But lazy generations just make you trust the article less. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | slacktivism123 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The decompilation might be interesting but the prose is full of sheen and puffery. It's like someone took a technical report from a bug tracker and ran a linguistic obfuscator on it. |