There are about 3 named concepts in every paragraph.
There are about 15 claims about named concept being the solution to a problem that's never explained.
At some point, if you try to make 20 different points, you make no point at all.
Yes, what it's doing is using continuation phrases. It wants to continue, and these token-combos, like Tekken 4, let it move from one gradient descent to the next, and like Tony Hawk, perform combo after combo, so it can just keep producing tokens.
Because thats how they're trained. In another thread, someone wished they'd taught the models "I dont know" and were extremely convinced that some how you could train a model to stop producing tokens, or whatever. You can't both train the model to generate output and also teach it not to. That's their whole bag of tricks.
But it's not trying to be clever, it's trying to keep generating.
What I mean to say is that AI ghost writing is fine (I see the comment by the author). Deciding not to read poorly written content is also fine (and there's a reason why writing style has been discussed as long as the printed page has existed).
With the speed at which HN readers can identify mass produced, AI-generated word salad, it is insightful to look at a what users aren't able to stand back from their outputs and view them from the intended audience perspective
I usually follow Divio’s documentation to reference explanations and references, but it is not suitable for a blog post
With all due respect, it shows. You have the ability to write way better than this.
I was halfway through and thought to myself, "Why is this so fucking hard to understand the author's point?"
The subject sounds extremely timely and important and is something HN readers really crave, but the rambling article just isn't doing it justice.
Which then gives you great insights like
"a team can only be effective if it carries no more complexity than it can absorb."