[nubg]

The article has hallmarks of being formulated by an LLM. Why should I bother to read it if I ca not be sure which parts are based on the prompt, and which parts are hallucinated from the LLMs world knowledge? Dear author, care to simply share your prompt with us?

[s314]

It wasn't "a prompt" but several prompts that transformed the raw experimental results to a blog.

> hallucinated from the LLMs world knowledge

This can't be true because I checked whether the content was consistent with the experimental outputs

[Squeeze2664]

The topic is interesting and you have my thanks for taking the time to look into it and prepare the post. Would you say it's fair to say that if you didn't use LLMs to prepare the post, we would have no blog post at all? In that case, I think I lean more towards being OK with this usage of LLMs, as I'd rather have this content available than not. However, I can only read that one repeated sentence about "booleans" (Ctrl-F "Boolean" and you'll know what I mean) this many times before I start questioning the validity of the entire document. It is not _good_ writing, to be frank.