I’ve become overly sensitive to it as well because it’s such a reliable indicator that there are other problems in the work.

I’ve wasted so much time looking at interesting repos this year before discovering that one of the main claims was a hallucination, or that when I got to the specific part of the codebase it just had a big note from the LLM that’s it’s a placeholder until it can figure out how to do the requested thing.

The people who have AI write their articles don’t care if it works or if it’s correct. They’re trying to get jobs and want something quick and interesting that will appeal to a lazy hiring manager. We’re just taking the bait too.

This sort of obvious pattern is an instant AI dead give-away that I keep on seeing in hundreds of blogs and code posted on this site:

   "Here is X - it makes Y"

   "That's not X, it's Y."

   "...no this, no that, no X, no Y."

There will be a time where it will be problematic for those who over-rely on AI and will struggle on on-site interviews with whiteboard tests.

I don't know, to me your sentiment sounds a lot like how back in the day they used to say "you can't just use a calculator all the time, use your brain and show the work on pen and paper".

humans have been using tools to communicate since pre-history. language itself is one tool of communication invented to supersede body-language and grunting and noises. the thought and idea is theirs, it was communicated. Would it be that much different if they used a spellchecker extensively to edit their work?

I get why you're annoyed but is it really such a big deal? random people aren't to blame for whatever other annoyances "AI slop" has created.