I started my blog to document my thoughts over time, and my second reason is to write as much as I can without relying on AI tools. As I said, I didn't use AI for any sentences; all the thinking was mine. I only used it for grammar checks, which helped me avoid mistakes and improve my writing skills. Even if you still think it's bad, at least I'm trying to improve. The article touched a lot of people and made it to the Hacker News front page, so I think the idea itself is fine, and thanks for your feedback.
I've started to really appreciate posts / articles with grammatical errors. I used to dislike those, but now they've become a proof of a human having written it.
Someone asked me on reddit a few days ago for recommendations on places to eat in the town I live in, said they were going to be traveling here soon and wanted some ideas. So I took 30min out of my day to give some good thoughtful suggestions, clicked submit, and _then_ decided to go check out their post/comment history. It was all perfect grammar and oddly short and specific statements.
Honestly, the AI tone makes me wonder if there's any truth behind the story or its just a hallucination. You'd probably be better off making grammar errors, or simply asking AI to list your errors and explain to you why they are wrong.
Opposite for me. I'm reading & understanding more because I know most people will depend on it 100% without understanding. That gap feels like leverage.
The replay simulator from history for off-policy eval is clever - avoids expensive rollouts. Curious how they prevent the policy from overfitting to already-discovered branches and going stale as the search space expands?