Comment by tux3
5 months ago
The technical content is okay, but there's some fluff with a characteristic LLM signature that cheapens the whole thing. Instead of an article hand-crafted by human hands, it screams to the reader that they are currently reading slop.
I would rather not read other people's slop. I could pass your article through an LLM myself, if I wanted that. Here's just one of the most tired snowclones that current LLMs love, everywhere in your content:
>This wasn't a minor limitation; it was a fundamental capability gap
>context-switch not just between data types, but between entirely different mental models of how to query data.
>This wasn't something we asked them to do. They discovered that the query builder could now handle their complex cases, and they preferred it over raw SQL.
>That's not just a technical achievement. That's validation that we finally understood the problem we were trying to solve.
It wasn't just a minor stylistic issue; It was a signal to close the page.
Isn't that though the narrative arc being shaped? We see it everywhere now, but just because LLMs like to output it doesn't make the structure you're highlighting bad.
Overall I found it a decent piece, a few too many "<term>: <explanation>" blocks for my taste but better than what I can write - and than most of the tech-industry blogging I come across.
Not sure why you need an "ain't just water, its a two element molecule!" type rubbish to tell a story.
Feedback well taken! I'll update the articles soon and do better henceforth.
…”for me”
Everyone else managed to read it fine.