It's there guys, I just missed it!

> TESS comes back to this part of the sky in November. I submitted an observing proposal asking it to record this star every 2 minutes while it's there.

> It was approved. Program #100.

Thought for 3.5, billion years

Life seeded out of the way, far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy around a small unregarded yellow sun.

Life has launched an interstellar probe that will be in range of your sensors soon.

Would you like to write a fun research paper on the subject?

yes we will

You know what's funny? Here's what the author says about that

> small note: I wrote this while being way too excited about the whole thing, so yeah, some parts probably sound a bit AI-ish haha, sorry about that

https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wzw8zd/comment/p...

I'm sorry. But what that means makes perfect sense to me; he can combine any two of his data points to predict the third.

Every article isn't AI written. If it is AI written, it is worth calling it out to save others time.

Well, I appreciate the advance warning, so I want to hear it.

I do. If somebody says it's written by AI, it saves me clicking on it and wasting my time.

On the other hand, I get mentally exhausted reading AI slop over and over again.

My brain can't help itself in looking for AI tells and gauging if writing sounds like AI or not.

Then once it latches onto the idea that the writing is probably AI, then it feels like half my brain is just reading the text looking for the AI smells.

Calling it "AI smells" like "code smells" might actually be what is going on in my brain, and I start code reviewing it at that level rather than reading it for what it does.

I really would prefer people not just post slop. I don't care if you use it to clean up your own writing, but don't just let it rip.

I want to hear about it, and I am tired of seeing slop text over and over and over again on every thread.

It's not AI tone, that's not a thing, it's just low quality text.

You're right that nobody wants to hear it, but I think that's because nobody wants to find out over and over and over that every thread is AI generated. Not because when something is AI generated, they wouldn't like a heads up so they can find something else.

For example, I've had people thanking me for pointing out LLMish later in an article when it's not as obvious at the beginning. It saves the time of thinking the article is manually written when it'll later turn out to be AI instead.

Note that I don't necessarily have anything against AI in particular, but rather the chronic lack of information density typical of LLM-generated articles. Some articles that were LLM-assisted are still information-dense enough to keep me satisfied.

Perhaps if they don't want to hear it they should stop upvoting the slop lazy crap articles to the front page in the first place.

It is harder to read, and it's especially egregious in the human-facing documentation or code comments.

It takes considerable effort, rules, examples, hooks and prompt to keep the popular $model reasonably concise, and yet STILL from time to time it starts vomiting absolute garbage.

At the moment the best recalibration is "shaming" it and showing both the negative (the vomit) and positive (slop replaced with human sentences). Good for a moment (up to 200k context).

is this supposed to be an example of bad writing because unnecessary bombast is definitely a sign of it

good writing is not just replacing random words with entries from thesaurus.com, it's writing for your reader. that's one thing LLM-generated text is very bad at - frequently violates the show-don't-tell rule, it lacks any interiority by it's very nature, etc

if you don't practice writing yourself, you don't develop the muscle of knowing what your reader's expectations are and you will forever remain a mediocre writer