The text is also pretty clearly AI-generated. I guess there's now a market for "I asked an LLM so that you don't have to", but the funny thing is that it's such a wall of text that no one upvoting it will have actually read it. So it's vibe-writing, vibe-coding, and vibe-reading. Full end-to-end synergy.

▲

faza 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Hi, author here. Sorry, you felt that way. I did put lot of effort in communicating my understanding, and used Claude only for review and visualizations.

▲

kordlessagain 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'd suggest splitting the content out into clearly defined sections, lead by the visuals.

Put the visualization and a short explainer, then have additional content show up if the reader drills in.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the content being run through an LLM. Networking is crazy complicated.

	▲	faza 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to do that.

▲

zerobees 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh come on. Just seven days before this 60-page essay, you apparently cranked out another 40-page one:

https://fazamhd.com/mental-models/software/

That's 100+ pages of in-depth technical writing in a matter of days. Amazing, really amazing. Also, not something that a human can do.

And FWIW, Pangram classifies vast swathes of "your" article as entirely AI-generated. Yes, I know the tool is not perfect, but between your superhuman productivity, and all the subjective tells, and the output from that tool, it goes onto my mental "AI slop" pile.

What I can't understand is why people can't just own it that they used a chatbot and that it was more than just "for review".

	▲	mekoka 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Short publication intervals. That's the heuristic you're going with? I have dozens of such unpublished long form articles on fundamental topics, just waiting for me to carve some time to polish. I expect that on a sabbatical I could finish and post them in quick succession. It's an unreliable indicator to determine AI-writing.
	▲	f3408fh 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Case closed.

▲

mekoka 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How were you able to pick this up? Not challenging your assertion. Just really curious. Can you point to some clues? I read it (with my own eyes). I can't see actual evidence the text itself is artificial or at least, that it is not human-curated.

▲

rundef 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I wonder whether mathematicians got the same reaction when calculators appeared: "You didn't compute every step by hand, so the result doesn't count."