> HN commenters express their anger about the writing style and how it was probably generated by AI.
Peak HN.
In all seriousness, I really liked the article. For me, it was well written.
Not sure what others have been reading so far, but this article already smells so human, I couldn't imagine anyone mistaken it for LLM output (especially since it is about LLMs and how they fail to work for some of us).
Funnily enough I also consulted three models across different vendors, and all came to the same conclusion (it's very human and very unlikely LLM produced). And yes, I let them all cross reference with older posts which are all pre-LLM era. Takes less than 5 minutes to do so.
On the article itself, I found the title quite relatable. When coding agents became a thing, I kept arguing with LLMs before realizing how pointless it is. I really liked the turn the article took, relating the communication breakdown to neurodivergence, and the inherent bias that current models bring.
It reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model
According to this communication model, there's four aspects to communication between humans. Apart from the factual and the appeal layers, it highlights other aspects, which it calls self-revealing and relationship layers. It is somewhat surprising, and definitely remarkable, that these also matter when communicating with an LLM.
Thank you for posting the article!