If it is, it's less fluffy and empty than most of LLM prose we're usually fed. It's well explained and has enough details to not be overwhelming.
Honestly, aside from the "<emoji> impact" section that really has an LLM smell (but remember that some people legit do this since it's in the llm training corpus), this more feels like LLM assisted (translated? reworded? grammar-checked?) that pure "explain this" prompt.
I did some research with it, and used it to help create the ASCII art a bit. That's about it.
I was afraid that adding the emoji would trigger someone to think it's AI.
In any case, nowadays I basically always get at least one comment calling me an AI on a post that's relatively popular. I assume it's more a sign of the times than the writing...
Thank you for the clarification! I'm sorry for engaging in the LLM hunt, I don't usually do. Please keep writing, this was a really good breakdown!
In hindsight, I would not even have thought about it if not for the comment I replied to. LLM prose fail to make me read whole paragraphs and I find myself skipping roughly the second half of every paragraph, which was definitely not the case for your article. I did somewhat skip at the emoji heading, not because of LLMs, but because of a saturation of emojis in some contexts that don't really need them.
I should have written "this could be LLM assisted" instead of "this more feels like LLM assisted", but well words.
Again, sorry, don't get discouraged by the LLM witch hunt.
I’m about ready to start flagging every comment that complains about the source material being LLM-generated. It’s tiresome, pointless, and adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion.
If the material is wrong, explain why. Otherwise, shut up.
If it is, it's less fluffy and empty than most of LLM prose we're usually fed. It's well explained and has enough details to not be overwhelming.
Honestly, aside from the "<emoji> impact" section that really has an LLM smell (but remember that some people legit do this since it's in the llm training corpus), this more feels like LLM assisted (translated? reworded? grammar-checked?) that pure "explain this" prompt.
I didn't use AI in writing the post.
I did some research with it, and used it to help create the ASCII art a bit. That's about it.
I was afraid that adding the emoji would trigger someone to think it's AI.
In any case, nowadays I basically always get at least one comment calling me an AI on a post that's relatively popular. I assume it's more a sign of the times than the writing...
Thank you for the clarification! I'm sorry for engaging in the LLM hunt, I don't usually do. Please keep writing, this was a really good breakdown!
In hindsight, I would not even have thought about it if not for the comment I replied to. LLM prose fail to make me read whole paragraphs and I find myself skipping roughly the second half of every paragraph, which was definitely not the case for your article. I did somewhat skip at the emoji heading, not because of LLMs, but because of a saturation of emojis in some contexts that don't really need them.
I should have written "this could be LLM assisted" instead of "this more feels like LLM assisted", but well words.
Again, sorry, don't get discouraged by the LLM witch hunt.
I’m about ready to start flagging every comment that complains about the source material being LLM-generated. It’s tiresome, pointless, and adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion.
If the material is wrong, explain why. Otherwise, shut up.
Though the source article was human written, the public exploit was developed with an LLM.
https://x.com/dez_/status/2004933531450179931