[logicprog]

Do you think it would help if I went through and manually rewrote all of the prose? If it would get people to listen, I'd be totally willing to do it. It's not like I don't like writing. I just was focused on something else when I was making this, namely trying to find a good methodology that isn't insane for this low amount of data.

[JasonSage]

When there's no discernable human filter on the text output, reading the text suggests it's what the LLM produced and not what a human considered.

This is low-quality--every single day I witness Codex and Claude misunderstand, mislead, and hallucinate responses based on "assumptions" and I have to fact-check them.

If I wanted a statistical analysis and to be the human in the loop, I would ask the LLM myself, and I would definitely NOT read an article that just dumps the LLM output as-is.

[bradrn]

Yes, that would help considerably.

(Also, I suggest clearly acknowledging where AI was/wasn’t used. I like CuriosityC’s suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411968)

[logicprog]

Alright, I'll do that. Although, sadly, I already posted it here, so I won't be able to post it again — I'll be stuck with this trash comments section that doesn't deal with any of the actual claims, just the aesthetics.

[bradrn]

Just reread the post — it’s much more pleasant to read now! Thank you!

(For what it’s worth, I think your own writing style is quite nice, now that I can see it.)

[sanitycheck]

I'm pretty sure more people would read it to the end if it didn't seem like AI output, yes.. At the very least you would have fewer (maybe not 0!) comments here saying it's AI slop.