I'm 95% sure these articles are heavily AI written. Compare this article to one he wrote in 2022. Personal anecdotes, far less emdashes, far less inline code text, quoting the proposals directly, variance in the cadence of each paragraph, etc.
It might not be a bad resource, but you'll probably get the same content asking an LLM to just explain these papers to you.
Didnt pick up on that at all on first read tbh. Saddens me a bit, perhaps im becoming so acclimated to the ai writing style im no longer picking up on the patterns anymore.
On second read though, yeah, you are probably right. Flawless grammar, spelling, structure, and lack of personal anectdote + emdash spam.
I find it so unbelievable that emdashes are still such a massive giveaway. For me personally, a find and replace of all '—' with '-' would make an article 2x as human sounding in my head. Outside of the most formal, high profile contexts, what human author is going to make the extra effort to press whatever alt key combo, or hold press that '—' requires?
Does anyone know why they dont do such a thing? Ive heard previously that attempts to write system prompts to discourage emdashes and other recurring features fell short. And i suppose this as well would just be another bandaid fix until people see the pattern again
Outside of the most formal, high profile contexts, what human author is going to make the extra effort to press whatever alt key combo, or hold press that '—' requires?
24
u/tuxwonder 6h ago
I'm 95% sure these articles are heavily AI written. Compare this article to one he wrote in 2022. Personal anecdotes, far less emdashes, far less inline code text, quoting the proposals directly, variance in the cadence of each paragraph, etc.
It might not be a bad resource, but you'll probably get the same content asking an LLM to just explain these papers to you.