5,013 karma · joined May 26, 2010
You’re arguing in favor of what I view as pollution. I’m not lacking thought, it didn’t terminate, you just value slop for reasons I don’t.
If the author generated text that required no effort, and has no understanding of the contents of the material generated, and no self-awareness of their behavior and how the audience will receive it, it definitely doesn't warrant wasting a single second reading it.
Now, granted, maybe they did review it, maybe they did understand it, maybe they did know how it would be received and merely made a mistake, but how are we to know? It quacks like a duck.
Subjectively, even without vision problems, I strongly dislike your choice also.
Go invent your own random alternatives and the AI models have across the board gotten better over time. Insects playing sports, anthropomorphic fruits performing martial arts, wizards conjuring weapons of WWII, whatever you can imagine. I've tried a lot of these, well beyond what I think would be a reasonable thing to specifically train as combinations. If they have given it a corpus of SVG drawings it has learned to extrapolate.
(note: wizards conjuring a tank got me a surprise animated SVG with my Qwen 3.6 35B model)
Failing that, GLM 5.2 is open weights, trades blows with current frontier models and widely available on commodity inference providers. And you could run it yourself if you do actually have the resources.
And it's not like you're concentrating higher levels of PFAS into the recipient, they likely have the same average blood concentration levels as the donor does since we're all equally exposed to the same sources.