It’s definitely got AI tells, and I understand the objection - it’s hard to tell the difference between slop (written without review or direction, meant to fill space or present a simulacra of information) and actual informational content. With this article, it was clear that the author wanted to describe what problems they had and how they overcame those problems, and it was concise and I could tell it was reviewed so the content seemed trustworthy to me. I understand that some people have pretty high standards - if you don’t have the time to type out all of the code yourself one character at a time, then write stylish, interesting prose about it one letter at a time, if all you want to do is solve interesting problems and communicate how you solved them, you should shut up until you get good. Me, I am also imperfect and lazy, so I don’t care to demand style points or demonstrations of perspicacity from others.

Thanks for posting this, OP, I thought it was interesting.

As a career musician with a heavy interest in electronic music and DSP, hearing the author work through designing the algorithm is interesting to me. They make several good points along the way of how a band relates to the implicit tempo of a performance when the drummer goes "off road" with a flashy fill or a hemiola. I'd never heard it articulated in this way, but it makes sense.

For that reason I like that the author is talking through their trial-and-error process in this way.

I understand the desire to have well-crafted writing, but this example shows sufficient care (for me) and doesn't throw up any red flags and it relates it's content well. It's not Nabokov, you know?

I also say this as someone who has never considered LLM-augmented writing, because I enjoy the process of articulating my thoughts and the creativity that comes with it.