Comment by cataphract

I'm not philosophically against AI or anything, but I think this needed some heavy editing.

I did not even initially think upon seeing this style for the first time that it was AI-written, because I would associate AI-written text as fluffy. This staccato instead looks like the model was told to be terse and informal. I think the informality doesn't help either -- it's not that you can't have a well-written colloquial text, but I think it's harder to pull off.

Here is an example:

> Gemma returned people_count: "many" instead of an integer. My vision prompt literally said integer or the string "many" if >10. Gemma followed instructions correctly; the bug was schema design. The fix was a stricter prompt (integer 0-99 with explicit guidance to estimate) plus a coercion in the parser for the legacy "many" responses. Don't union-type schema fields. Pick always-int or always-string, never "int or this one specific string," because every downstream consumer pays for the choice.