I appreciate the direction of this article, and commend the author on publishing work, but the first sentence in the first paragraph is exactly what they lament.
> A pattern I see is that people use AI to build something new, then they use AI to retrospectively summarize what they have already built into a design document. Reading a document like this isn’t just difficult—it is punishing.
That's a classic calling card of LLM prose but that doesn't mean they actually used an AI. Though sure, it would be nice if we gave this style a name and then abolished it.
No, usually humans write more than just a short unsubstantiated punchline in their "it's not x, it's y's", unless they're trying to sell you something.
Well, not quite the classic calling card - LLMs generally use a contrast of opposites. (e.g. "it wasn't a bug -- it was a feature", although that predates LLMs :)
TFA's use is more common in "normal" language: "it's not just [minor], it's [major]". (But, as others have pointed out, it was probably deliberately parodic anyway.)
I call it the “it’s not delivery—it’s DiGiorno” construct. I generally tune out when I see this construct, which is so prevalent on LinkedIn these days, which is inundated with clichéd writing.
blandcoffee · · focus · HN ↗
> A pattern I see is that people use AI to build something new, then they use AI to retrospectively summarize what they have already built into a design document. Reading a document like this isn’t just difficult—it is punishing.
Apocryphon · · focus · HN ↗
sippeangelo · · focus · HN ↗
epihelix · · focus · HN ↗
TFA's use is more common in "normal" language: "it's not just [minor], it's [major]". (But, as others have pointed out, it was probably deliberately parodic anyway.)
linguae · · focus · HN ↗
theandrewbailey · · focus · HN ↗
We've had AI output all these decades, but never recognized it. Is this evidence of time travel?
\s
watwut · · focus · HN ↗