> "None of it had to do with AI," Goodarzi told CNBC's Jim Cramer on "Mad Money." "Everything was about how do we become more effective."
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/20/intuit-ceo-says-companys-17p...
There's a lazy habit from some folks to say something they either disagree with or don't understand was "written by AI" without backing up that statement.
" I know you are but what AmI ? "
In human practice, some hack usually writes the body, but the editor decides the title. And that can happen after the article is written or before.
I don't think they would change that workflow, even if the writer, or both writer and editor, were replaced with a AI.
So yours was a good observation, but it's rather weak evidence.
Thank you for saying this, I keep arguing the same. "This is llm" has become lazy for "I dont like this so I will pretend its llm"
See the problem?
The comment you responded to did not have those.
Fwiw, the article we're commenting on was likely not LLM written. The sentence structure is too convoluted, no LLM would've generated it like that - unless very carefully prompted ... But at that point it's no longer pure AI slop (imo).
If the article is bad, just say "this is a bad article without coherent arguments" or something like that.
Let me restate that correctly. Just facts. No fluff."
vs.
> Goodarzi told CNBC's Jim Cramer on "Mad Money."
Reality vs. PR BS
FTFGoodarzi