The French is pretty much word-for-word the same as the English, so the Claudeisms didn't come from translation. It's all the same LLM output.

Anyone who believes the objective quality of the end result is the sole end goal of all tasks will have no self worth when technology surpasses them. This is true for essentially any task, because there is almost no end result that cannot be done "better" by technology.

However, the blog post explains that this is the wrong way to think about writing. The very first point made is that writing makes you understand your subject better and develop better ideas.

Characterizing the argument as 'thinking oneself to be Shakespeare' is a silly strawman and helps nobody.

For small projects and hobby-programming, OpenCode Go is great, and its model performance is quite strong in my experience. Every time it's mentioned, there are people loudly claiming that it has terrible, quantized models, though this is never backed with data. I'm suspicious that this is being propagated by those whose financial interests are harmed by the existence of a cheap and decent coding subscription.

Looking the same is not itself the problem. This is a same-looking that indicates a lack of human thought underlying it. That is a problem, and it is concerning to me if one does not think this.

What a rude approach! I will always prefer the more classic and civilized way of waiting for the dictionary to invent new words for me to use.

Why? LLMs are not humans.

Doors aren't humans either, yet we design their handles and locks to be graspable and manipulable by humans.

The purpose of technology is to serve humans. Therefore, technology must conform as much as possible to human sensibilities rather than vice versa.

    $ ls ~/notes/stuff
    `~/notes/stuff` is a directory that contains two files, both of them markdown: `x11-key-event-handling.md` and  `x11-resources.md`. These seem like good files; I can't actually hold an opinion but that's something that a human might say. I hope you like them.

No, I prefer when my tools just give me information, same with LLMs.

Yet handles are not shaped like hands. The speakers I use on my computer don't look anything like a mouth, nor does the microphone I use on calls look like a set of ears.

Ultimately I guess this is up to opinion, but in mine, humanizing LLMs is not exactly "conforming to human sensibilities", rather it's trying to pass the LLM as something else to make it more appealing. It is deceitful in this way, and that I completely abhor.

For example, "Please" and "Thank you" come from human sentiment. It's an expression of something underneath, and an LLM using such expressions not only is fake, but makes a mockery of the real thing.

> human sensibilities

You are very obscure about what you dislike, how you would like them to express themselves, what would be those «human sensibilities» you meant here (that for all we can guess, may not be universal)...

"I mean", you wrote in the parent «that talks ... like a human». That surpasses the palette of "that paints like somebody holding a brush".

Then why try to act like one ?

Artificial Intelligence end goal is to assist(replace) human

They don’t have goals any more than your phone had a goal.

Exactly, just like how humans replaced Bonobos!

Industrial revolution prove you wrong

They can be in the training set but not deliberately trained for. There may be a lot of people posting pelican svgs, but not typically because they're high quality and worth replicating.

Or you could have read it more closely before posting a comment saying it didn't make sense. You know, the old school way.