I definitely found the thesis insightful. The actual content stopped feeling insightful to me in the “What uv drops” section, where cut features were all listed as if they had equal weight, all in the same breathless LLM style

The author’ blog was on HN a few days ago as well for an article on SBOMs and Lockfiles. They’ve done a lot of work in the supply-chain security side and are clearly knowledgeable, and yet the blog post got similarly “fuzzified” by the LLM.

Editing the post to switch five "it's X not Y"s[1] is pretty disappointing. I wish people were more clear with their disclosure of LLM editing.

[1]: https://github.com/andrew/nesbitt.io/commit/0664881a524feac4...

Interestingly I didn’t catch this, I liked it for not looking LLM written!

To me, unless it is egregious, I would be very sensitive to avoid false positives before saying something is LLM aided. If it is clearly just slop, then okay, but I definitely think there is going to be a point where people claim well-written, straightforward posts as LLM aided. (Or even the opposite, which already happens, where people purposely put errors in prose to seem genuine).

there is going to be a point where people have read so much slop that they will start regurgitating the same style without even realising it. or we could already be at that point

I have reached a point where any AI smell (of which this articles has many) makes me want to exit immediately. It feels tortuous to my reading sensibilities.

I blame fixed AI system prompts - they forcibly collapse all inputs into the same output space. Truly disappointing that OpenAI et all have no desire to change this before everything on the internet sounds the same forever.

> Ironically, some day we might employ LLMs to re-humanize texts

I heard high school and college students are doing this routinely so their papers don't get flagged as AI

this is whether they used an LLM for the whole assignment or wrote it themselves, has to get pass through a "re-humanizing" LLM either way just to avoid drama