Nice article by Stephen Diehl - I really liked his latest on crypto.

I noticed that in certain sections there seems to be a heavy use of LLM-assisted writing, such as this one:

> The platforms did not invent fear, greed, loneliness, or status anxiety. They industrialised their extraction. Their recommendation systems are vast reinforcement-learning loops that continuously experiment on human weakness. Each objective is a moving composite of high-dimensional signals for attention, retention, and conversion, dispersed across models, metrics, tests, and feedback systems. The subject cannot see the experiment. The operator cannot fully explain it. The regulator can barely comprehend it. The loop knows only that one stimulus keeps a person scrolling while another lets them leave. Calm accuracy loses. Threat, transgression, humiliation, and impossible promises win. The resulting social damage appears nowhere in the objective function. It arrives as an externality.

Not sure what you think of it.

In my view, his ideas are nice and interesting, and I would rather read less verbose, less "perfect" blog posts, and reduce or remove the use of LLMs.

That does indeed seem like LLM text to me, which makes a depressing article even morning depressing. Inauthentic and hypocritical.

I'd like to give the author the benefit of the doubt, but since we've set all ourselves on being cynical....

That paragraph jumped out to me, as well. Thats also when the writing got very long winded and seemed to be repeating itself.

Same. Every time I see LLM has contributed to the work I feel it greatly dilutes it. I'll push through if the topic is important and there's good points. But e.g. on YT, a sloppy script that barely stands on its own becomes a hard no on the very first "it's not X, it's Y".