Sure, the information is all there, but the style just puts me off reading it. I really don't like how few authors have a voice any more, even if that voice is full of typos and grammatical errors.
I used Claude to expand on my ideas for a few of the purely informational things, and for formatting, but this article is largely written by hand.
For example "Interface tests are the ability to know what's wrong and explaining it." is in hindsight a confusing sentence. Many such cases.
> Enter Claude Code 2.0.
> The UX had evolved. The harness is more flexible and robust. Bugs are fixed. But that's all secondary.
It's OK for emphasis on some things, but when you see it on every blog, it's a bit much.
Plus, I dislike that everything is lists with LLMs, it's another thing that you just start seeing everywhere.
Either a) I sound like an LLM when I'm writing articles (possible) or b) turing test AGI something something.
Lists point is fair, I did use Claude for formatting. Where did it off put you here?
I guess I don't really mind the use of an LLM or not, it's more the style that sounds very samey with everything else. Whether it's an LLM or not is not very relevant, I guess.
We entered the machinable culture. We spent many years trying to make the machine mimic humans, now humans are mimicking the machine :)