I actually worked really hard on this. I'm feeling kinda low about the response. I know your some random person but if you have constructive criticism, i'm all ears.
I'm sure you did work hard on this, and I also find it very interesting from a technical perspective.
One constructive point for you:
don't even write the first draft of a document you want humans to read with AI. It's much harder to get the AI voice out than it seems. Stuart Halloway talked about this at the last Clojure Conj, and I couldn't agree more. It also makes it harder to follow the sage writing advice to minimize what you write.
"How code keeps its family resemblance" - AI would say this, a person would not. It's just noise on the page.
"Measure only their shape and you can still tell who copied whom" - this is a sentence structure Claude loves, but no human would talk about "measuring" shapes. The verbs and the nouns don't feel right.
Then you start a paragraph: "DOOM is the perfect place to test it." But you don't actually say what "it" is specifically. It doesn't seem like AI would write that though... Maybe you did in a later draft? It's hard to switch voices, like switching authors.
If you want people to read something, write it yourself.
Just use less LLMs for presentation and writing. The text and graphical elements just scream "Opus 5.5" to me, perhaps because I use it a lot these days, I assume sol and astra are not that different.
At this point I am not sure I wouldn't get a very similar output if I just prompt Claude for the genealogy of Doom ports as an interactive dashboard. Maybe try to deviate from that, even if that would rank lower on a model benchmark: you don't have to provide an interactive data visualization for everything. You can narrate a story from your own opinionated pov.
I don't necessarily agree with the parent, but I don't fully understand your response. Was this largely written via LLM, or no? (I don't believe LLMs preclude the notion of working hard)
Edit: And if so, was it for help with English? Or another reason?
All the obvious AI generated headings is a good place to start. It may seem clever at first but it's a big giveaway it's AI generated and just turns off a large group of people.
Sometimes less is more. This page reads more like a DevOps dashboard than it does an entertaining article about DOOM. It's just overbearing right from the jump and it's a turn off. LLMs are notoriously bad at this, so this just comes off as someone prompting an LLM and posting the output as-is (even if that's not the case).
I concur with the other comment that it's an interesting idea, but you should just write the article yourself. You can even link to the technical details so that those who are interested in exploring that data can do so. But as-is it's really a good example of AI slop.
I appreciate that you liked the premise. The repo has my full methodology and data for scrutiny. I thought the voice was alright, just a straight description of the data.
could be an interesting idea if the article wasn't slop as pure as the driven
I actually worked really hard on this. I'm feeling kinda low about the response. I know your some random person but if you have constructive criticism, i'm all ears.
I'm sure you did work hard on this, and I also find it very interesting from a technical perspective.
One constructive point for you: don't even write the first draft of a document you want humans to read with AI. It's much harder to get the AI voice out than it seems. Stuart Halloway talked about this at the last Clojure Conj, and I couldn't agree more. It also makes it harder to follow the sage writing advice to minimize what you write.
"How code keeps its family resemblance" - AI would say this, a person would not. It's just noise on the page.
"Measure only their shape and you can still tell who copied whom" - this is a sentence structure Claude loves, but no human would talk about "measuring" shapes. The verbs and the nouns don't feel right.
Then you start a paragraph: "DOOM is the perfect place to test it." But you don't actually say what "it" is specifically. It doesn't seem like AI would write that though... Maybe you did in a later draft? It's hard to switch voices, like switching authors.
If you want people to read something, write it yourself.
Just use less LLMs for presentation and writing. The text and graphical elements just scream "Opus 5.5" to me, perhaps because I use it a lot these days, I assume sol and astra are not that different.
At this point I am not sure I wouldn't get a very similar output if I just prompt Claude for the genealogy of Doom ports as an interactive dashboard. Maybe try to deviate from that, even if that would rank lower on a model benchmark: you don't have to provide an interactive data visualization for everything. You can narrate a story from your own opinionated pov.
I don't necessarily agree with the parent, but I don't fully understand your response. Was this largely written via LLM, or no? (I don't believe LLMs preclude the notion of working hard)
Edit: And if so, was it for help with English? Or another reason?
All the obvious AI generated headings is a good place to start. It may seem clever at first but it's a big giveaway it's AI generated and just turns off a large group of people.
Sometimes less is more. This page reads more like a DevOps dashboard than it does an entertaining article about DOOM. It's just overbearing right from the jump and it's a turn off. LLMs are notoriously bad at this, so this just comes off as someone prompting an LLM and posting the output as-is (even if that's not the case).
I concur with the other comment that it's an interesting idea, but you should just write the article yourself. You can even link to the technical details so that those who are interested in exploring that data can do so. But as-is it's really a good example of AI slop.
You should re-evaluate what you consider to be hard work if prompting a chat bot is your idea of it.
I found this interesting.
I appreciate that you liked the premise. The repo has my full methodology and data for scrutiny. I thought the voice was alright, just a straight description of the data.