Maybe I’m a Luddite but I find AI prose completely tiresome to read, and its presence in an article forces me to be skeptical about whatever the author wrote. The latter was obviously a problem pre-AI but these tools simply make it much easier to tell stories, narratives, etc. that aren’t yours.

AI-prose may be vetted, but there is no way for a reader to know that for certain as much AI-prose is not.

As such, you cannot be sure if the writing contains correct and accurate information at all, even with modern models.

> you cannot be sure if the writing contains correct and accurate information at all

how is that related to LLMs?

Yeah, and there is no pleasure reading this. It's way too long and verbose for what it's trying to say. I'd much rather read the prompt, in bullet points or whatever format they were provided before inflating a few example pictures and notes into a short novel

How is this criticism not just ad hominem slop? You could have said "It's way too long and verbose for what it's trying to say". The writer is orthogonal.

The idea that the writer is orthogonal is WILD

Because you think you're always going to be able to tell the difference between AI writing and human writing? That's WILD!

The heavy usage of LLM writing as is the case here is a strong signal it doesn't and isn't.

I won't waste my time on a person who didn't bother to express themselves.