[neya]

> Dammit, fell for another AI slop article AGAIN...

Is it really "slop" if you keep falling for AI written articles again and again? Doesn't that actually mean the opposite - the AI seemingly convinced you (or almost) that it was written by a realy human?

[snackbroken]

LLM text is like an optical illusion for the language part of your brain, only instead of the payoff being "Oh, cool! The dots aren't actually moving!" it's "Oh, 'cool'. You weren't actually trying to tell me anything worth my time."

[embedding-shape]

Yes, because it sounds reasonable at the beginning, then the further you go, the less sense it makes. Ultimately you look up the stuff that felt weird initially, and found the reason why it sounded so weird.

If I never actually noticed it, it wouldn't be slop, that I'd agree with. But in this case, I did notice, so it is slop.

[jurgenburgen]

They pointed out that the article is suggesting a completely wrong solution.

If the article was written by a human it would be valuable feedback for the author. Because the article was written by a LLM it was just the commenter being tricked to be engaged by generated noise.