Igrom

Can you share more about how you've received these recommendations? Did you purposefully ask Claude to find books on a topic, were they brought up as part of a generic "help me do the research on this topic" prompt? Also, fiction or non-fiction?

Pretty please, I would love to know it as well! I am interested in urban design and that's, uh, organic urban design.

Are you planning to consume article comments for your videos?

(2024)

Ha ha ha. I did settle into using a Mac for development work, but not without a moderate degree of customisation. Reducing keyboard latency was, like you said, one of the changes that made the most difference.

I'm curious what other kinks you have had to iron.

It seems that, as soon as you transact with a sanctioned entity, you are globally in breach of the agreement and risking the revocation of all your certificates — also the ones for non-sanctioned countries.

Front matter:

   - it is called a "Subscriber Agreement" and not anything that suggests that its scope is a single certificate

   - it's a "contract [...] regarding Your [...] rights and duties relating to [...] Certificates" - plural

2.1 "Term":

  - "[the agreement] will remain in force during the entire period during which *any* of Your Certificates are valid" - plural

3.1 "Warranties":

  - "[by] requesting, accepting, or using *a* Let’s Encrypt Certificate" - plural

It was never the job as long as the profession was called "software engineer" and not "coder".

I believe you might be replying to a bot account.

In case you are interested in hearing a reader's opinion: the AI writing was noticeable and detracting. The most significant cues for me were the sensational tone and the prolific "clever" one-liners. I think that while it is difficult to make the judgment with any degree of accuracy based on a single suspicious sentence, but given the length of the article, all the individual cues eventually add up to a near certainty.

I think that the sorry thing about the article is that, even though I've read through an article of yours, I have learned nothing about what kind of person you are. I think that there's more to blogging than just showing the work. It's also a stage for you. The displays of character in the article ("I had a feeling", "I sat with that for a minute") written in first person are not actually yours, and are instead, in a way, a performance of the LLM that you used. So in my opinion (and you're free to disagree) you've robbed yourself of the attention you deserved.

However, I assume that the contents of the investigation were true, and if so, they are quite damning (in fact, my SO has just surprised me with a cheap Chinese projector. Nice timing!). It was also great that you've shared the prompts and results at each stage.

serious_angel is not contending with you that the design is bad, or that it is bad because it is unoriginal. In fact, they are not even specifically calling out the design.

They have noticed the design, recognized it as the output of an LLM, then proceeded to discover that an LLM was involved in much of the creation of the project. This is an academic project. Whatever the pedigree of the researcher is, this implies to the grandparent that the final result of the work may be amateurish or worse, to an extent generated. Therefore, he's concerned that it puts the legitimacy of the research outcomes (e.g. completeness, contents of letters, classification, maybe even hallucinations in the thesis proper).

Preemptive arguments:

1. "The author's a researcher, not a programmer; therefore it's fine to use an LLM. It is preposterous to ask each researcher to learn web development to publish their research." You are right, but given the amount of vibe-coded websites we see, and them all having the default (Astro?) style, the grandparent all the same has the right to associate that style with untrustworthy crap. I'm not saying that this academic website is necessarily crap. However, I think it's useful for the grandparent to share their sentiment, because the researcher might not know.

2. "A lot of pages have links to sources; you could verify the legitimacy yourself". perhaps, but doubting the veracity of research is a bad first impression, isn't it?

It's a bit sad, because the website is non-trivial, and would have taken quite a bit of effort without an LLM. But it is difficult to separate webdev enablement with the rest of the LLM baggage.

I was checking the submission on the phone and only peeked at the comments section. While it's not always easy to judge if something is AI-generated or edited, here it was obvious at first glance from the quotes. Assuming that all of the comments were done in good faith, I think that the low AI literacy even here is really concerning.

The first talk begins in 10 minutes, at 10:00AM UTC+2.