> Six people, six relationships, and a subtitle saying nobody typed any of it.

> a closeness score above the cut · nobody typed it

> A dashed line is a conclusion nobody typed.

> Nobody stored a sleep schedule.

> The hours the log goes quiet - a sleep schedule nobody wrote down

> published by metadata that contains no words.

This is Claude-ism that is particularly infuriating, it never makes any sense.

> quite long-winded for a blog post

That's actually exactly what does it for me. After the intro, it gives you way too much specific detail. No one cares about the exact file path or whether that path is TCC Full Disk Access protected. What does that even mean? Why is this important enough to be in the first sentence of the section? I don't care that there's 51 database files and 181 other things and 278 doodads. Who says stuff like "triple store?" It uses bizarre language with far too much detail, and like you said, your eyes start to glaze over because there's so much irrelevant information. No human would've chosen to write all that tedious detail in their post about something much more interesting. It's bad writing. It's slop.

A human would've said something like "It's a database in <Library/IntelligencePlatform> with three columns that contain..." and left all the rest of it out or maybe in some extreme details footnote.

>this one didn't scream "slop" to me other than being quite long-winded for a blog post that I admittedly did not finish on first read

Maybe you're just looking for GPT 3.5 era tells?

Because this one sure screams AI slop loudly and clearly:

"The identity group is the tidy story: same surname, same home address, an iCloud Family flag — and it is the small half. "

"The graph is the overview, and an overview is easy to shrug at. The pages behind it are not."

"Six people, six relationships, and a subtitle saying nobody typed any of it."

"Below that is the part I find hardest to argue with."

"This is the page's own honest point: the graph points at the face clusters and can name almost none of them (three of the twenty-nine, in the fixture). It does not need to."

"None of this is content. It is all metadata, and it is enough."

It's already technically possible for LLMs to generate all kinds of styles of text. In fact older models are better at it. It's the newer models that are nearly impossible to steer. This makes me less hopeful for the future. There is apparently some incentive for Claude and ChatGPT to lock in these very recognizable patterns.

AI writing is fine in a constrained space.

If you create a strict template, like a PowerPoint deck or tightly formatted report, the LM does a really, really good job. at populating that template with good data.

If you give it an open license to just create stuff, it’s always terrible for the general audience — but it may be fine for you or a small group that is familiar with the subject.

I compare it to fast food. An uneducated teenager is quite capable of putting together a McDonald’s lunch within the constraints of the system. If you let the kid loose in a kitchen designed for trained chefs, the result would not be a good lunch.

>Complaints of AI are like a form of friction that eventually goes away.

This. Already there is evolution in AI-related comments here.

For example, a year ago they often featured remarks like "I know AI when I see it: here are unmistakeable 'tells.'"

Then there would be a lively back-and-forth about the validity of the stated giveaways.

Such "How I know it's AI"-type comments no longer appear.

[flagged]

It is funny to me how slop enthusiasts argue from the past and the future to deny the present state.

"Slop is here to stay so you better get used to it because slop is inevitable and you will be left behind."

It is both already a cemented permanent presence and destined to arrive by an unbreakable prophecy at a date TBD.

Yes, that was a weird defense; essentially, he used it for the actual interesting parts of the article.

Interesting for me it's the opposite. I care about this so I let AI do it since LLM are better writers than the majority of people. I'm not so arrogant to think I'm a writer of that caliber.

This comment is not directed at you, but this is the best place I could find to insert my thoughts on this "nO LLm slOP" distraction:

----

The research is jaw-dropping enough for the average reader to comprehend (e.g: I am not a techie, but a former IBEW datacenter wiretwister).

It could be covered in pube-sprinkled-turds and would still be worth reading.

To me the "slopLOL" crew is akin to people who'll take their time to correct others' their/they're/there usage:

Just read the fucking sentence (LLMs can and do and aren't so poopy-you-suck-for-being-human).

Because the article itself is way more interesting than the question of with what style it was written.

I would go further and suggest that you do not access any website or open any files via your browser while you have malicious browser extensions installed. You do not need this project's README to tell you this.