[fleebee]

The graphs don't line up. I'm inclined to believe they were hallucinated by an LLM and the author either didn't check them or didn't care.

Judging by the other comments this is clearly low-effort AI slop.

> LLMs have certainly damaged trust in general internet reading now, that's for sure.

I hate that this is what we have to deal with now.

[stavros]

I don't know why you do. I found the article interesting, derived value from it. I don't care if it's an LLM or a human that gave me the value. I don't see why it should matter.

[fleebee]

It matters to me for so many reasons that I can't go over them all here. Maybe we have different priorities, and that's fine.

One reason why LLM generated text bothers me is because there's no conscious, coherent mind behind it. There's no communicative intent because language models are inherently incapable of it. When I read a blog post, I subconsciously create a mental model of the author, deduce what kind of common ground we might have and use this understanding to interpret the text. When I learn that an LLM generated a text I've read, that mental model shatters and I feel like I was lied to. It was just a machine pretending to be a human, and my time and attention could've been used to read something written by a living being.

I read blogs to learn about the thoughts of other humans. If I wanted to know what an LLM thought about the state of vibe coding, I could just ask one at any time.