People clearly can, though, because they did.

reinitctxoffset 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm inclined to believe the author, given that they were honest about the machine assist on the engineering? Why would they lie about the post and not the artifact?

More broadly, I'm just getting tired of the low effort snark on this. If someone is going to cite a passage, or examples of a theme, do some serious analysis by all means. I'm not trying to tone police high effort comments.

But this drive by "that's LLM output" thing is the new low effort "javascript is just as hard as c++" a.k.a "i don't know how to do that and i have no intention of learning and it feels bad so i'm going to lash out".

Make a case that something is deficient on its merits or don't, but baseless accusations of dishonesty are not a reasonable default. The parent here did real work that no one paid them to do, donated it to the community asking nothing in return, it's meticulous and high value, and they've already been run over by the FSF goons, you really want to pile on with no evidence?

	▲	tom_ 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm inclined to believe them too, so when he said he used LLMs to tweak the wording, I'll accept that was the case. Perhaps the opening post was ill-phrased, but I think the second post clarifies it a bit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48677597 - and I was certainly getting some vague LLM vibes from the writing, so I was curious about this too. So, whatever it is in the LLM output that is detectable, it's clearly detectable, even with the latest LLMs, and even when it's present possibly only in trace quantities.