haha interesting - the article is 99% written by me, but i had gemini review it and sharpen up the send off because it felt weak.

I guess this goes to show that even a subtle touch of an LLM can undermine authenticity.

edit: i've removed that line. I don't like to edit articles after publish (call me old fashioned, but i try to be honest and transparent), in this case though the line adds nothing and your call-out has taught me a good lesson: shit human writing is better than "good" AI writing.

I personally don’t think there is anything wrong with this. To the critiques I would say; this is the world we live in now. There are LLMs capable of essentially perfect writing skills. We need to get used to seeing a lot more content either written by or finished by LLMs.

The best practise for writing docs with LLMs in my opinion, which you have done, is to write as much as you can first then feed that into an LLM for context, and then work with the LLM to finalise it. Maybe half the time is spent writing and half the time is spent going back and forward polishing the doc.

Finally I think it’s important to give the LLM very clear writing guidelines based on your own writing style. I did this by feeding Claude around 20 of my handwritten docs and asked it to analyse my writing style and then add thy to its Claude.md. After a free round of iterations you can get great results!