No? It says “pilots the controller” which is fairly vague of the cause and effects going on. I think a real human would clarify the controller motors being used to physically move the controller.
it says it uses the haptic motors like within 2 or 3 sentences, it says it 'slams the controller into the puck until it charges', it says it uses an overhead camera, and it even says that it navigates the controller to the puck using the motors and camera further down if you don't feel like taking the 3 seconds to connect the dots.
a video would've been nice, but I would've communicated this the same way and i'm not an llm, even if this thing may have been written by one, nor did I have any problem understanding the intent - not a brag, it just doesn't seem that strange to me.
They put some code together and published it for all to use, with an MIT license, that lets a game controller wiggle itself over to a charging puck using computer vision. That's pretty neat.
If you want the documentation to be written to a standard that is more to your liking, then you're free to submit a PR or fork it -- or do just about anything else you want with it (including ignoring its existence).
These are the weirdest criticisms. It seems totally normal to me for engineers to be bad at explaining their project to a lay audience. Whereas that's the kind of thing that LLMs are great at.
It doesn’t say haptic motor anywhere. The only reference to how it moves in the whole thing is “internal dual Linear Resonant Actuators” which seems intentionally obtuse and even that is buried in the depths surrounded by a ton of unimportant detail.