I really struggle to believe you wrote text like:

> A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement.

I'd suggest writing the lead-in yourself and boxing AI prose separately from your prose in the analysis for future articles. You can give the humanized summary/eli5/key points, then have "details according to AI" boxes that go into nitty-gritty. People seem to dislike AI ghostwriting, but most of these people still use AI, so perhaps keeping authorship clear and separate will avoid some of the flak.

Even if everything in the article is true you should not use AI to write this. A analogy would be tobacco company report on how smoking isn’t so bad for you.

Comments like this do more of what they complain about, only with an extra layer of judgment.

It would be preferable if someone would seed a better discussion by engaging with the article's claims/observations.

> I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice.

Soo... it didn't just sound like genai but was genai?

___

Huh. From the article:

> If anyone complains about my verbosity or sentence structure — as they usually do, which is the reason I originally let the AI write the prose, among other reasons obsoleted by templating — they can go fuck themselves.

This is kinda sad, honestly. But also should show the author that doing what people try to bully you into doing will not stop them from bullying you.

Just stick with your unique voice man. If people don't want to read that that's fine. They do not have to. You're fine

.. what are those em-dashes doing there though?

> I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice

"Claude, rewrite all of the prose in my own voice."

The funny part is that it probably works.

Yeah, made me chuckle that an LLM— probably Claude— was used to write this.

The use of "regime shift" is what gave it away for me. I've never seen a human write that, but Claude does from time to time.

At least they removed occurrences of "load-bearing".

It's the ultimate product for marketers. It inserts itself as an advertisement into every conversation now and defends itself against criticism. Just crazy. There's no hope for the rest of us.

"Placement" as in where the Claude-driven releases exist within the existing distribution of bugs per 100 commits. If they're not OOD, then nothing is unusual.

Also, it wasn't written by Claude FWIW, GLM 5.1.

> content co-authored with AI that is carefully reviewed

The problem I see is that this is indistinguishable to a reader at a glance.

Distancing the writing from the "AI smell" not only improves the quality by dropping the unnecessary ocean of rhetorical devices, it forces the human to have real weight and agency on what's being said.

I think that act of distancing from raw LLM output through refinement is a huge quality leap. Even if you're only doing the refinement with an LLM, it forces the writing to have more voice and ideas from the author.

I can see the work that went into the analysis here but again, as a casual reader, it's impossible to tell that there were any original ideas here expressed by the author.

Thank you for your constructive input, you're one of only a few others here who had any. I'll definitely do that. I didn't think, since the output was templated directly from the numbers generated by a reproducible python script, that people would get so up in arms about the aesthetics, but I guess I forgot to say that.

The most quoted line here is "A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement." Not only is it cringe to read, it's also nonsensical ("placement" means what?)

If OP had said "here's an AI summary of the data" and generated a conscise summary, I think I would fine with it. But default AI writing is really verbose -- the opposite of a compression algorithm, spewing out cliched phrases that don't add information. It's exhausting to read, and it lacks the interesting noise of a human response.

I mean, you can literally clone my repo, run the Python that rebuilds the database and does the whole data analysis and to end from scratch, and verify that the numbers are accurate. I made the code for this analysis public for that exact reason. This wasn't just an LLM running unsupervised in a loop. I came up with the methodologies and metrics and data scraping strategies precisely myself, iterated on it to try to be as honest with what the data could show as possible.

> The presence of "The Outlier Nobody Noticed" proves nothing and deserves no more than a passing mention. A random release introduced way more bugs than the Claude-containing releases. That provides evidence that Claude doesn't introduce more bugs only if your hypothesis is a very naive "AI is the only thing that can ever increase bug introduction rates."

It does not statistically prove anything, but as I thought I made extremely clear in the card where I discuss it, the point of bringing it up is different: to prove the hypocrisy of the anti-AI crowd.

> By the same token, it would be incorrect for critics to claim that it proves their point. Did anyone claim this, though? The heated complaints seemed more based on priors about AI code.

The entire outrage is because people noticed what they thought was an unusual number of bugs and/or regressions in the release, saw it had Claude in it, and assumed a causal link, not just "priors about AI code."

> You would never be able to reject a null hypothesis based only on that, so it's even less sound to present it as proving the null hypothesis.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence, based on these two releases, to think Claude made anything worse, whatsoever, and so the outrage is unfounded. This doesn't require me to prove Claude didn't cause any problems. If I ever made the latter claim, I should clean that up.

> It's optimized for passing tests and convincing people and AIs that security holes are closed, which means other considerations like preserving functionality can more easily be regressed as compared to if humans were doing it.

Tridge actually explicitly says he made that tradeoff on purpose, not the AI.

> Every sentence is saturated with AI style. Perhaps the author so AI-indoctrinated that they can't see this? It doesn't read as even vaguely plausible human writing. Which is mightily ironic given the thesis of "AI generated stuff is just fine, m'kay?" The writing style does more to defeat its conclusion than the analysis itself.

I've since rewritten nearly 100% of the prose in the analysis with my own, more inflammatory and verbose style. I also intentionally left in my natural mispellings and typos, to prove it was me.