While the topic matter is interesting, I feel like obviously synthetic content falls into the “that which was not worth writing, is not worth reading either” trap.
If the authors tone is extremely ChatGPT-esque, I apologize in advance.
I think what stands out to me is this cartoonishly punchy, faux-dramatic framing.
That, and specialist terms that seem to be thrown in there in an empty way, just to signal subject-matter expertise that’s not even expected of a DIYer’s experiment report:
> It’s a multi-decade, billion-dollar street fight over bytes and pixels, waged in the esoteric battlegrounds of DCT blocks and entropy coding
I like using real idioms that have percolated through culture ('birds of a feather', 'white elephant', 'nip in the bud', etc), not stupid contrivations.
As someone who sweated through hours and hours of English essay-writing in school, LLM output that is misrepresented as genuine human writing is annoying and highly disrespectful of the reader's time and effort. The moment I saw the stupid, contrived headers and dozens of emojis, I closed the tab.
I refuse to waste my time reading the output of a matrix multiplication done in some server farm when I could do the latter myself.
> uses slopbot 9000 to explode his point into ten times the "prose"
> mfw
LLMs seem to love putting stuff in bold, thats an immediate red flag for me.
> The data shows it’s not just an incremental improvement; it’s a demolition.
Complete with extra bold to emphasize the second half, sigh.
To be transparent, I was experimenting with a more "punchy," narrative style to weave in some wit and humor. I didn't want the writing to feel dry and was aiming for a flow that was more entertaining. In retrospect, I clearly overshot the mark and ended up with something that feels inauthentic and distracts from the main point.
The experiment and the data are what I was most excited to share, and the writing shouldn't obscure that. Based on this feedback, I'll revise the article to be more direct, cut the fluff, and let the numbers do the talking.
Seriously, I appreciate the reality check! This is a great lesson in "know your audience." :)
Rather than this inflated slop that look like I am trying to reach word count in a paper and one sentence becomes 15 useless ones
Edit: This is not so much commentary on AI than it is the core of your post is a few tables. Just post the tables and one or two sentence of conclusion and that is all ! It is so tedious to read through dozens of paragraph of autogenerated unnecessary nonsense -- that contribute nothing of value to the data
But on the bright side I've got a large backlog of ideas now just waiting to be turned into pixels
… and so I'll continue to stick with AVC, thanks! :-)
I keep getting a paragraph or two into something, read one of the terrible "It's not just word - it's massive hyperbole!" sentences, see that there are several more in subsequent paragraphs and can't continue.
However bad the author's original writing that generate this output was, it can't be as awful as this.