It's an interesting article. To me it reads like someone who is not confident in their writing, but is very interested in getting their idea across, iterated with an LLM to produce it.
It set off all my LLM writing triggers and I noped out after about 3 sentences, because I'm designing/coding with AI all day and I'm 100% sick of its writing. I don't really care if it was written by an LLM or a person who writes in LLM style.
HOWEVER, the surprising fix for me was to ask a number of LLMs to summarize it. I omitted the "is this AI slop?" parts when I pasted it in. Like I said, I don't care about who wrote it, but I hated the writing style.
The AI summaries were quite readable.
They converged at a high level on the summary, but with a good bit of variance in nuance. I had a good follow up discussion with one of the LLMs, so I'm glad I tried it.
It set off all my LLM writing triggers and I noped out after about 3 sentences, because I'm designing/coding with AI all day and I'm 100% sick of its writing. I don't really care if it was written by an LLM or a person who writes in LLM style.
HOWEVER, the surprising fix for me was to ask a number of LLMs to summarize it. I omitted the "is this AI slop?" parts when I pasted it in. Like I said, I don't care about who wrote it, but I hated the writing style.
The AI summaries were quite readable.
They converged at a high level on the summary, but with a good bit of variance in nuance. I had a good follow up discussion with one of the LLMs, so I'm glad I tried it.