12 ms·
Some other commentators said this was AI slop. I don't have enough expertise to say if it really is, but it sure has the "claudish" cadence of AI generated tex
by harshaw 21d ago
Some other commentators said this was AI slop. I don't have enough expertise to say if it really is, but it sure has the "claudish" cadence of AI generated text that makes it hard to take it seriously. The authoritative and strong statements, the use of phrasing with colons and dashes, the use of bold, etc.
- Espressosaurus 21d agoThe claims and data are interesting (perhaps overstated in the usual Claude way) but it's about 20x more prose than is actually justified.
- ameliaquining 21d agoPangram confirms: https://www.pangram.com/history/9ccdf6ed-5016-4325-b1ac-b3b0150a6784 https://www.pangram.com/history/9ccdf6ed-5016-4325-b1ac-b3b0... I find it amusing that even the AI skeptic articles are written with AI these days.
- georgemcbay 21d ago> Some other commentators said this was AI slop. To me it read like a combination of human written and AI slop, as if the author had Claude write it and then rewrote portions of it, or the author wrote an initial version and told Claude to "punch it up, without rewriting the whole thing entirely". Regardless of who or what actually wrote it the piece was much longer than it needed to be (though I do think it highlights a very real problem).