What sucks is that clearly the author has prompted the model somehow to generate this text, and this prompt probably contains the actual meat that the model just "expanded on" while adding it's own fluff, and if the author just shared the actual verbatim prompt instead, the documentation would be 90% shorter but also 200% more "informative per character used".

Just share the prompt you used, regardless of how low quality or bad it is, rather than this word spaghetti of 100s of words saying basically nothing, such a waste.

▲

sceptic123 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That isn't going to be very helpful is it?

> can you build a website to promote the app

> can you add a page showing off the winamp mode

	▲	jeltz 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Still more useful than what exists now.

▲

km144 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That would actually be a reasonable thing to do with a model that is good at writing though. I'm sure if you used that method on Opus 4.6 you'd get a pretty decent result, because Claude models used to be quite good at that sort of technical synthesis. Asking a model that is bad at technical writing (e.g. Opus/Fable 5) to write your docs is a bad idea.

	▲	embedding-shape 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ultimately what seems more important that how good the model is at task X vs task Y, seems to be that the human accepting/rejecting/iterating on the text can actually identify "good" from "bad" text, and makes the effort to fix it. Otherwise it doesn't matter much what model you use, it makes boring, bland and bloated prose.