The content is nice and insightful! But God I wish people stopped using LLMs to 'improve' their prose... Ironically, some day we might employ LLMs to re-humanize texts that had been already massacred.

▲

captn3m0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The author’ blog was on HN a few days ago as well for an article on SBOMs and Lockfiles. They’ve done a lot of work in the supply-chain security side and are clearly knowledgeable, and yet the blog post got similarly “fuzzified” by the LLM.

▲

DrawTR 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Editing the post to switch five "it's X not Y"s[1] is pretty disappointing. I wish people were more clear with their disclosure of LLM editing.

[1]: https://github.com/andrew/nesbitt.io/commit/0664881a524feac4...

▲

NewsaHackO 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To me, unless it is egregious, I would be very sensitive to avoid false positives before saying something is LLM aided. If it is clearly just slop, then okay, but I definitely think there is going to be a point where people claim well-written, straightforward posts as LLM aided. (Or even the opposite, which already happens, where people purposely put errors in prose to seem genuine).

▲

laidoffamazon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interestingly I didn’t catch this, I liked it for not looking LLM written!

▲

yunohn 5 hours ago | parent [-]

“Why this matters” being the final section is a guaranteed give away, among innumerable others.

▲

rick_dalton 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I realized once I was in the "optimizations that dont need rust" section. Specifically "This is concurrency, not language magic."

	▲	dkmar 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yup. The author has now swapped that part out for “Any language can do this.” Just commenting to preempt any comments telling you that the article doesn’t say this.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

yunohn 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I have reached a point where any AI smell (of which this articles has many) makes me want to exit immediately. It feels tortuous to my reading sensibilities.

I blame fixed AI system prompts - they forcibly collapse all inputs into the same output space. Truly disappointing that OpenAI et all have no desire to change this before everything on the internet sounds the same forever.

▲

fleebee 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're probably right about the latter point, but I do wonder how hard it'd be to mask the default "marketing copywriter" tone of the LLM by asking it to assume some other tone in your prompt.

As you said, reading this stuff is taxing. What's more, this is a daily occurrence by now. If there's a silver lining, it's that the LLM smells are so obvious at the moment; I can close the tab as soon as I notice one.

	▲	SatvikBeri 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> do wonder how hard it'd be to mask the default "marketing copywriter" tone of the LLM by asking it to assume some other tone in your prompt. Fairly easy, in my wife's experience. She repeatedly got accused of using chatgpt in her original writing (she's not a native english speaker, and was taught to use many of the same idioms that LLMs use) until she started actually using chatgpt with about two pages of instructions for tone to "humanize" her writing. The irony is staggering.
	▲	mattkevan 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It’s pretty easy. I’ve written a fairly detailed guide to help Claude write in my tone of voice. It also coaxes it to avoid the obvious AI tells such as ‘It’s not X it’s Y’ sentences, American English and overuse of emojis and em dashes. It’s really useful for taking my first drafts and cleaning them up ready for a final polish.

▲

efilife 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I also don't read AI slop. It's disrespectful to any reader.