Maybe it's unfair, unhelpful or overdone to call out llmisms, but if OP is reading this I stopped reading pretty quickly as a result of things like:
> [CUE] does not just hold the text; it validates that the pieces actually fit. It ensures that the code in your explanation is the exact same code in your final build. It is like having a Lego set where the bricks refuse to click if you are building something structurally unsound.
And that's despite having a passing interest in both cue and LP
> Maybe it's unfair, unhelpful or overdone to call out llmisms
Not anywhere near as overdone as posting AI generated/revised articles to HN that are an absolute slog to read.
A real shame, honestly, because the other article[1] from this blog that made it to the front page recently was good. The difference in writing style between them is striking, and I think it serves as a really good example of why I just can't stand reading AI articles.
Ah, the negative positive construction. Another casualty of the anti-AI movement. The semicolon was almost certainly inserted manually in place of an em-dash, models almost never use them.
Accusing people of using generative AI is definitely one of those things you have to be careful with, but on the other hand, I still think it's OK to critique writing styles that are now cliche because of AI. I mean come on, it's not just the negative-positive construction. This part is just as cliche:
> It is like having a Lego set where the bricks refuse to click if you are building something structurally unsound.
And the headings follow that AI-stank rhythmic pattern with most of them starting with "The":
> The “Frankenstein” Problem
> The Basic Engine
> The Ignition Key
> The Polyglot Pipeline
I could go on, but I really don't think you have to.
I mean look, I'm no Pulitzer prize winner myself, but let's face it, it would be hard to make an article feel more it was adapted from an LLM output if you actually tried.
There are a few like this. You can bet on Jesus not coming back in the calendar year for a little pocket money.
Funny, because a bit like the yes side of the civil war scenario, if JC comes back and someone is the sort of person to bet that he will, then do they really need the payout in those circumstances; and will the gambling website be in a position to pay out?
Polymarket and other prediction markets dont take risk on the trades. Two sides are needed to make a market so you’re likely to get your payout. So all the people taking the “safe” bet lose their collateral and the winners get the proceeds if the unlikely event happens.
Couple of unsolicited comments: first is that on mobile, the featured badge sits on top of the right facing arrow. Second is that the bubble level seems to be upside down? The bubble sinks rather than floats at least on my pixel
Pets.com buys 8M sq feet of datacenter realestate in a deal with Oracle's liquidators, which is reported to include fitting the racks with hamster wheels and feeders. Sets sights on 400B IPO
> [CUE] does not just hold the text; it validates that the pieces actually fit. It ensures that the code in your explanation is the exact same code in your final build. It is like having a Lego set where the bricks refuse to click if you are building something structurally unsound.
And that's despite having a passing interest in both cue and LP
reply