[frangonf]

Although this LLMisms also still stand out to me, I find them bearable as the glue part of this kind of technical/white paper like content.

Maybe I'm already lost in the AI psychosis, maybe some of us are in a transition phase trying to separate from pure synthetic "unmanned slop" to "acceptable slop", maybe someone could derive the same or more value getting the prompts that hold the industry experience the author seems to hold and pointing them to the git codebase/docs herself...

In my case (not seriously engaged in git performance since my git game is trivial) I find the explanations from the sections I have limited knowledge of to be very informative.

[Cthulhu_]

I think people 'scan' for LLM tells so that they know to read the text with some skepticism instead of accepting it as authoritative; this is probably a healthy attitude to have. However, I'm sure that over time the 'tells' will just go away entirely.

If the text is valuable and correct then it probably won't matter much. It's not like I read technical documentation in detail to begin with (more scan reading)