"No generation, no estimates - just token counts:"

"Authoritative: it is the same count Anthropic bills against."

"This reframes a headline that looked like good news."

I’m normally one to complain about people complaining about these LLM-isms, but yeah, this one really grates on you.

It’s a shame because it’s making an excellent point! It just takes so long to get to the point that the reader loses the will to live.

Yes, I could probably ask an LLM to summarise it for me. No, I’m not going to. I would prefer the author just take care of that for me.

Aside of the claudeisms and the obvious AI smell, it overexplains everything and doesn't come to any useful conclusions. It's just not a good post.

The nudge to think about both "tokenization as variable" as well as actual tokens consumed per task is still good.

A problem is AI by default is not very good at anything. It’s pretty mediocre. With a good harness and a lot of prompting/context - you can get it to spit something out that’s pretty good. Coders have been learning and fighting this fight for a couple of years now.

The issue is that it’s not just code - they suck at writing. Really bad. Unreadable, incoherent, messy.

Humans are also bad at judging the quality of things they themselves aren’t very good at. So a senior swe sees what claude spits out and says “This is trash.” And spends x amount of time getting it to not be trash. And Jr dev thinks “this is magic!” And pushes it to a PR.

So my theory is the people “writing” this AI slop think its great! But actually just aren’t very good at writing copy and don’t have the skill to recognize it and prompt their way out of it.

Or they don’t care. That’s an option as well.

PS for anyone reading, next time AI does something that you aren’t super familiar with that looks pretty good… maybe find an expert to review it.

Well, criticizing is, of course, great. But the reality is that English is not my native language and I dictated most of it with my voice, then processed it with the help of AI, translated, added, corrected, and converted.

It is actually a big result of work, a lot of research and attempts. And to just say that "oh, this is AI-slop," I consider unfair, but that is your choice.

There is a difference: - There are people who do, - And there are those who criticize.

We need to make attribution standard. It's a lie to pretend you wrote something you merely prompted.

Bro, this was the only reason I opened the comments, and I'm so happy to see someone else noticed. Even if they removed that, the utter sloppiness of the prose is unbelievable. Offensive, even.

Thank you for the criticism. I heard you. I added a TLDR. I cleaned up many AI constructions. By the way, I tweaked it a bit, compressed it.

One way or another, I want to note that yes, this text was made in collaboration with AI. My English is non-native. It helps me translate, helps me structure better. Yes, there is a downside, it can bloat the text with unnecessary words. But that, unfortunately, is the price.

But the key thing is that I tried very hard to share my many years of experience, or rather a part of it, which I acquired, with all of you. And I am very glad that this information turned out to be useful to you.

The key here is: * The information that is written in the article. * Not how it is written, but what I was trying to convey to you.

Thank you very much for reading and responding.

Yes it's worth commenting about. Not everyone, but many want to know that signal just like you do. It not only provides a useful heuristic about the article, but about whatever product or service they're advertising/selling.