It sucks that this article is clearly LLM edited, with common phrases like "same shape as", "the intuition: ", and the "tiny explainer" which clearly generalized from a prompt accidentally.

Good article, but when sharing it I will have to preface "yes it's slop, but it's a good explanation".

Absolutely embarrassing that the author didn't catch that these LLM-isms are a (and here I'll use one) bad signal.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that publishing in this style stems from a lack of reading experience and writing experience, which does not bode well for someone pretending to be an expert. I gave this article to someone highly intelligent who doesn't know the first thing about how LLMs work internally, and she immediately called out that it reads like AI text.