> This is such a well written story, [...] you should also get credit for how you've woven this narrative together, it's a lovely read.

Don't forget to give credit to the LLM too which wrote the story for him.

▲

stavros an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Can we stop with this? The world has changed, LLMs exist, people use them, and "omg LLMs" is a very tired trope now. If you didn't like the article, you can critique it, but "you used a tool I don't like" is just boring.

	▲	Marazan 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I personally find LLM text exceptionally boring and tiresome to read. It is often incredibly voluminous and filed with trite phrasing that turns a one sentence idea into 3 paragraphs of pablum. Yes, this has been inspired by a senior management figure in my company posting a clearly LLM assited 500 word slack message that could have been 2 lines.

▲

benstopics 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, it's 2026 I used Claude to write a lot of it. But tell me this. Do you know which paragraphs I wrote?

▲

Eisenstein 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Please don't feel the need to be defensive about this. People are reacting in a predictable way to a shift in how effort is perceived.

Where one formerly could use a certain way of writing as a heuristic for effort put into content they are spending time ingesting, now that heuristic is meaningless and a new one must replace it.

At this point some people have decided 'has markers of AI writing' is the heuristic to match 'no/low effort' on, and are trying to use shame in order to start a system of self-policing against it. Unfortunately that isn't going to work, because

1. the heuristic is flawed

2. most people are going to end up using AI tools for writing, since writing well is difficult

▲

magic_hamster an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't agree that it's flawed. There's so much to gain by writing your own words. It's something to practice and after a while, it's even fun to be able to express something the way you intended. Even today I do my own writeups and articles manually. I want the text to come from me, to show how I'd put it, even if I have a typo here and there. I feel like it's worth it to keep your own personality instead of having AI do it for you - or even edit for you. Even if you think your writing suck, it's still your voice and it's just more interesting for me to read an actual human being.

▲

benstopics an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I agree honestly. I just wanted to get the story out and share it and I'm swamped IRL. But I'm going to go back and clean it up when I get the chance. I do appreciate the constructive feedback from everyone and I will do better.

	▲	grey-area an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It’d be an interesting exercise to just write it again yourself without referring to the LLM article then compare the two to see which bits of each are better. Yours would be shorter, but perhaps better and more honest?

▲

Eisenstein 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't use AI for my writing and I agree with you. I meant that it is bad heuristic because people often do put a lot of effort into posts with AI writing styles in them, so it is not accurate due to a large amount of false positives. If one performs a test that is wrong a significant percentage of the time then it will be eventually abandoned.

▲

benstopics an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I honestly get it. I wouldn't have made that comment but I get why it was made. It tells me I need to go back and put some more effort into it and clean it up. You know, in-between working 80 hours a week at the prompt factory and working on the actual game... Without Claude there would be no story to read. I pay Anthropic $200/mo and Claude is a robot. I don't think anyone shed a tear that I didn't put "coauthored by Claude" at the bottom.