[lionkor]

It sucks that this article is clearly LLM edited, with common phrases like "same shape as", "the intuition: ", and the "tiny explainer" which clearly generalized from a prompt accidentally.

Good article, but when sharing it I will have to preface "yes it's slop, but it's a good explanation".

Absolutely embarrassing that the author didn't catch that these LLM-isms are a (and here I'll use one) bad signal.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that publishing in this style stems from a lack of reading experience and writing experience, which does not bode well for someone pretending to be an expert. I gave this article to someone highly intelligent who doesn't know the first thing about how LLMs work internally, and she immediately called out that it reads like AI text.

[Ampersander]

You're not supposed to read it, just like you're not supposed to write anything anymore. Claude can read and write more than any human. We just lean back and relax now.

[janalsncm]

I don’t think it’s absolutely embarrassing. First of all, the point of the author writing at all is to aid understanding, not produce prose. So from that standpoint, what would be embarrassing would be to include incorrect facts that suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.

From my read, it is fine. The brief history of LLMs is complicated since every single component has papers introducing enhancements. So it’s easy to ignore them or get bogged down with details.

The author appears to be a security researcher learning about LLMs for the purpose of defending against common attacks. So this piece is that person giving themselves a crash course on the topic. The fact that they cleaned up their notes with an LLM is frankly completely irrelevant.