- "Why This Matters"
- "That's accurate, but it's only half the answer — and the less interesting half"
- "this isn't an edge case. It's routine."
I'm at the point, I would just rather read something somebody actually wrote even if it's not grammatically perfect and has lots of spelling mistakes.
Yes it’s advertising in that I believe in my product and write about it.
Just write your own blog and this won't happen in future.
> As usual with LLM, it is based on other content.
Show me where else on the internet someone waxed poetic about a conceptual separation of transport and function regarding WireGuard. I dare you.
Show me another client library like the one in the article? That’s the double-dare.
Did you even read it?
People getting tricked? Who knows?
> Did you even read it?
I quit when I figured it was written by an LLM. I'm not interested in reading LLM 'content' without it providing a source.
I am willing to generate some of my own sauce with a prompt, and then requesting the sources. That way, I know at least some parameters of the input and output.
But with your article, I do not know which sources were used as reference, I do not know which prompt you used.
As for HN, they're busy with tackling the LLM problem. They know it is a problem.
There has to be a balance.
You’re belabouring the point because you don’t believe that by filling the internet with slop you’re doing anything wrong when actually it’s antisocial and wrecks the commons.
If you think content matters so much then just invest the time in writing it yourself rather than trying to convince others that it is ok that you didn’t.
Did you? That is the issue we have. We can't know for sure that you even read your own article, since it has all the hallmarks of LLM generated content. It's embarrassing.