"Today, wolves, foxes, and snakes inhabit the cave, but it was once a popular spot for human pastoralists and their domesticated animals."
"Rather, they think it was a convenient spot for herders to stop and provide their flocks with shade and water."
"Even though humans didn’t have a permanent presence in the lava tube, the natural structure provided shelter for people and their herds for thousands of years"
Therefore don't expect their writing to improve from your criticism. It's designed to take, not give.
I like to stop reading these kinds of authors as soon as I realize I'm experiencing a memetic attention attack. Then I write a snarky comment so others will start to hate them as well.
Generalizing topics and/or adding caveats about how something may not always be true is the easiest way for a LLM to increase the rate of providing factually accurate responses (aside from refusing to answer). Both of those strategies requires being more verbose.
Concise and to the point is not in the best interest of a LLM designed to give decent answers 99% of the time.
The process resulted in those verbose, interjection-laden responses that we see now, because that type of response was deemed 'better' (thumbs-up'd more) than the shorter, more-direct-but-less-impressive-sounding responses.
>Hi again :wave:.
>As always I prefer terse replies.
>Let's <context of activity>
><First question>
I usually then get short answers and then I query for more info if required.
Anything remotely complex I still do by hand. But holy shit its nice having something do my boilerplate.