I like the ideas, but either it’s entirely LLM written or the writer has internalized “LLM voice”. At this point that is more distracting than helpful.

▲

beachy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The prompt: "take existing decades-old knowledge about best practices in setting up alerts and spin it into a multi-page article presenting it as somehow novel, to assist our submarine marketing efforts".

▲

thunky 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do we really need this comment for every article? Who cares if AI wrote it if you like the ideas?

▲

tuetuopay 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The issue is, there’s not a lot of meat in this article. Anyone who’s done any amount of SRE can perfectly articulate alert fatigue in way less words.

Yet the article doesn’t tackle at all the hard part: making alerts that are actually meaningful. They handwave it instead of giving actual advice. This post is a good intro, but I didn’t "walk away" with anything useful.

This is why, in this case, AI is important. Someone puts in an effort to write a short article (if a bit wordy) that can be used by e.g. beginners or managers? Good! I’m not the target audience. But if it’s the output of AI, what’s the intent?

▲

thunky 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The aricle is a marketing page under a "Winning with us" section right next to a "CEO Page" that describes a CEO pitch. I really don't think this article is very different from thousands of others like it that were published before AI.

	▲	tuetuopay 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Huh, thanks, I failed to see it on my phone. Down the trash the article goes then.

▲

loloquwowndueo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I care.

▲

thunky 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Nobody cares that you care, because you're not adding anything to the conversation.

▲

loloquwowndueo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m answering a direct question posed by the parent post. What’s your excuse?

	▲	thunky an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I wrote the parent post. It was a rhetorical question.