> If you have something to say about the text then say it.

I could point out the individual phrases and describe the overall impression in detail, or I can just compactly communicate that by using the phrase "AI". If it bothers you, read it as "AI-like", so there is a pretension.

I have no problem with using AI for writing. I do it too, especially for documentation. But you need to read it and iterate with it and give it enough raw input context. If you don't give it info about your actual goals, intentions, judgments etc, the AI will substitute some washed-out, averaged-out no-meat-on-the-bone fluff that may sound good at first read and give you a warm wow-effect that makes you hit publish, but you read into it all the context that you have in your head, but readers don't have that.

Formatting and language is cheap now. We need a new culture around calling out sloppy work. You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago. But today you can easily slap an AI filter on it that will make it look grammatical and feel narratively engaging, now it's all about deeper content. But if one points that out, replies can always say "oh, you can't prove that, can you?"

▲

famouswaffles 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>"This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project."

I just find phrases like this a bit obnoxious at times.

>You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago.

Then why not just say that? It's rambling bla bla bla. What's so hard about that? Why invent a reason for issues, as if rambling articles didn't get written 5 years ago.

Like No, being written by an LLM or not is not the reason the article has no benchmarks or interpretability results. Those things would be there regardless if the author was interested in that, so again, it just seems there's little point in making such assertions.

▲

bonoboTP 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's very hard to discuss this. To some people it's obvious, to some it isn't. To me, every single paragraphs is obvious fluff AI writing. One problem with it is the repetitiveness and the schmoozing salesman feel. The other is the lack of benchmarks and stuff. It's both. The two are connected because the AI has to lean in to its bullshitter persona when it's not given enough raw material to write up something strong. But whenever an AI writes in its default voice like this, it also indicates that the context was not well curated.

But anyway, yes, I can also just move on to the next article. Most of the time I indeed do that.

	▲	stingraycharles 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For what it’s worth, I agree with you; the article is LLM written although not with the usual gotchas, so they’re more subtle. The subtle ones like this I don’t mind too much, as long as they get the content correct, which in this case leaves quite a bit to be desired. I’m also noticing that some people around me appear to just be oblivious to some LLM signals that bother me a lot, so people consume media differently. I absolutely do believe that AI generated content needs to be called out, although at this point it’s safe to say that pretty much all online content is LLM written.