It’s also annoying as a human because Claude et al rate their own writing very highly, putting human<>LLM interactions at a disadvantage to human->LLM<>LLM interactions.

▲

jasonlotito 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	nozzlegear 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's not hard to parse, but it's a dense pair of sentences that say nothing. It just pads the length of the article and gives readers mental fatigue trying to read between the lines to figure out what the point is.
	▲	CoolestBeans an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I actually don't think this article was LLM generated but these two sentences suck. I think they were moved from another part of the article without being modified. First, "the hardest lesson". What lesson? It is out of context. Nobody was talking about lessons before this. Second, "the bottleneck wasn't what we were measuring and observing". Of course the bottleneck itself wasn't that. They couldn't discover what the bottleneck was using the information in their measurements and observations. It is a clunky and frankly incorrect passage in an otherwise well written article.
	▲	ares623 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sure, it's not technically hard to read. But it suuucks, making it hard to read, the same way (some) fast/junk food is hard to swallow. They have access to a trillion dollar writing machine god, and they choose to publish that.