But I don't really get what the problem is with using AI for editing. This article clearly has a sense of what it's trying to say. A human wrote the first draft, and then AI polished it. It's a method I use a lot myself. So it's a human plus AI hybrid piece, and honestly, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the content.
Stuff like isolating the hot core and packing the cold fields, that's just common knowledge you pick up.
Compared to purely human writing, it's actually safer and reads better than you'd expect, so I find it hard to understand why people are complaining about this.
If anything, I think tech blogs especially need to check whether their own thoughts line up with the knowledge of an LLM, which is basically a talking encyclopedia. But it seems like people don't really see it that way.
We rely on subtle distinction in writing style to distinguish sources from each other and to read important cues into their communication intent, the same as with vocalized speech.
Scrubbing that away from writing with AI has the same effect as would running everyone's speech through an anonymizer.
Some people may be blind to that sort of thing entirely, much like some people can't recognize faces, but for most people it just creates a sense of noise and discomfort when everything everywhere is written in the same style. And that impression is only made worse when that increasingly uniquitous anonymized style is so painfully average and repetitive.
If there was a tool that let you edit select characteristics of your writing while preserving your voice, the way a professional editor might help a professional writer, that might be amazing for helping people communicate better and more easily. But that's not this. This is loud, articulate noise.
> the mechanics that make zoning real: why #[repr(C)] is load-bearing, why the magic number is often 128 and not 64, and why adding prefetch hints can make things worse.
> The honest rule
Sigh... yet another Claude written article, and (unless I'm blind) it doesn't seem to be disclosed anywhere.
Normally I'm not the one to complain, but it's really tedious to see this writing style pretty much everywhere nowadays, and the more you see it the more you start to find it unbearable to read.
But I don't really get what the problem is with using AI for editing. This article clearly has a sense of what it's trying to say. A human wrote the first draft, and then AI polished it. It's a method I use a lot myself. So it's a human plus AI hybrid piece, and honestly, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the content.
Stuff like isolating the hot core and packing the cold fields, that's just common knowledge you pick up.
Compared to purely human writing, it's actually safer and reads better than you'd expect, so I find it hard to understand why people are complaining about this.
If anything, I think tech blogs especially need to check whether their own thoughts line up with the knowledge of an LLM, which is basically a talking encyclopedia. But it seems like people don't really see it that way.
We rely on subtle distinction in writing style to distinguish sources from each other and to read important cues into their communication intent, the same as with vocalized speech.
Scrubbing that away from writing with AI has the same effect as would running everyone's speech through an anonymizer.
Some people may be blind to that sort of thing entirely, much like some people can't recognize faces, but for most people it just creates a sense of noise and discomfort when everything everywhere is written in the same style. And that impression is only made worse when that increasingly uniquitous anonymized style is so painfully average and repetitive.
If there was a tool that let you edit select characteristics of your writing while preserving your voice, the way a professional editor might help a professional writer, that might be amazing for helping people communicate better and more easily. But that's not this. This is loud, articulate noise.
> the mechanics that make zoning real: why #[repr(C)] is load-bearing, why the magic number is often 128 and not 64, and why adding prefetch hints can make things worse.
> The honest rule
Sigh... yet another Claude written article, and (unless I'm blind) it doesn't seem to be disclosed anywhere.
Normally I'm not the one to complain, but it's really tedious to see this writing style pretty much everywhere nowadays, and the more you see it the more you start to find it unbearable to read.