[robbie-c]

Is it on topic to complain about the various claude-isms in this article? I don't know any actual humans that write titles like "Two floors the rate card hides".

I find my brain disengages once I suspect something of being written by an LLM. If the author didn't put much effort into writing it, should I expect them to have put much effort into fact-checking it?

Edit: this specific title has been deleted from the article. That was not my point! Please put in more effort into writing things that you want others to read! Rather than putting in low effort but being better at hiding it.

[mft_]

"No generation, no estimates - just token counts:"

"Authoritative: it is the same count Anthropic bills against."

"This reframes a headline that looked like good news."

[stingraycharles]

Yeah this is an extremely poorly written article. They didn’t even bother to add a “rewrite this article to make it sound less than AI”.

It’s also using a bazillion words to make a point that could be summed up in a single paragraph: there’s a huge variance in the number of tokens required to encode the same content, with code leading the charts.

To be fair, most of this was already known, and Anthropic communicated very clearly about the different tokenizer they started using.

Their compute is also mostly 1:1 correlated to the number of tokens, so I don’t believe in the conspiracy that this is just to inflate prices.

[iainmerrick]

I’m normally one to complain about people complaining about these LLM-isms, but yeah, this one really grates on you.

It’s a shame because it’s making an excellent point! It just takes so long to get to the point that the reader loses the will to live.

Yes, I could probably ask an LLM to summarise it for me. No, I’m not going to. I would prefer the author just take care of that for me.

[phist_mcgee]

If you couldn't bother writing it, I can't be bothered reading it.

[sisve]

Yeah. To often now a days there are articles with really good points, but they are just so verbose and clearly AI generated.

I could live with ai content if it was short and to the point. But it's always so lengthy. Hope that will change.

A tl;dr section at the top and then the long read from ai could also be OK if they marked it.

[SecretDreams]

> that the reader loses the will to live.

My general vibe hearing about AI.

[jascha_eng]

Aside of the claudeisms and the obvious AI smell, it overexplains everything and doesn't come to any useful conclusions. It's just not a good post.

The nudge to think about both "tokenization as variable" as well as actual tokens consumed per task is still good.

[esafak]

We need to make attribution standard. It's a lie to pretend you wrote something you merely prompted.

[add-sub-mul-div]

Yes it's worth commenting about. Not everyone, but many want to know that signal just like you do. It not only provides a useful heuristic about the article, but about whatever product or service they're advertising/selling.

[conception]

A problem is AI by default is not very good at anything. It’s pretty mediocre. With a good harness and a lot of prompting/context - you can get it to spit something out that’s pretty good. Coders have been learning and fighting this fight for a couple of years now.

The issue is that it’s not just code - they suck at writing. Really bad. Unreadable, incoherent, messy.

Humans are also bad at judging the quality of things they themselves aren’t very good at. So a senior swe sees what claude spits out and says “This is trash.” And spends x amount of time getting it to not be trash. And Jr dev thinks “this is magic!” And pushes it to a PR.

So my theory is the people “writing” this AI slop think its great! But actually just aren’t very good at writing copy and don’t have the skill to recognize it and prompt their way out of it.

Or they don’t care. That’s an option as well.

PS for anyone reading, next time AI does something that you aren’t super familiar with that looks pretty good… maybe find an expert to review it.

[ianberdin]

Well, criticizing is, of course, great. But the reality is that English is not my native language and I dictated most of it with my voice, then processed it with the help of AI, translated, added, corrected, and converted.

It is actually a big result of work, a lot of research and attempts. And to just say that "oh, this is AI-slop," I consider unfair, but that is your choice.

There is a difference: - There are people who do, - And there are those who criticize.

[smusamashah]

Instead of getting offended by a fair criticism you should learn from it. In your articles consider adding a disclaimer that says exactly what you just said here in your comment here that you post-processed your voice and thoughts through LLM.

LLM speak is like the new corporate speak. Enterprise writing is fulll of fluff and nothings and they all read the same. That sameness is what most readers here are sick of.

(Your comment here that I replied to is also written by AI which is even more sad :| )

[dolebirchwood]

> There is a difference: - There are people who do, - And there are those who criticize.

Weird shield to hide behind, considering there are also people who can do both.

[robbie-c]

> There are people who do, - And there are those who criticize.

There’s no need for that. I’ve done plenty.

[d1l]

Bro, this was the only reason I opened the comments, and I'm so happy to see someone else noticed. Even if they removed that, the utter sloppiness of the prose is unbelievable. Offensive, even.

[ianberdin]

Thank you for the criticism. I heard you. I added a TLDR. I cleaned up many AI constructions. By the way, I tweaked it a bit, compressed it.

One way or another, I want to note that yes, this text was made in collaboration with AI. My English is non-native. It helps me translate, helps me structure better. Yes, there is a downside, it can bloat the text with unnecessary words. But that, unfortunately, is the price.

But the key thing is that I tried very hard to share my many years of experience, or rather a part of it, which I acquired, with all of you. And I am very glad that this information turned out to be useful to you.

The key here is: * The information that is written in the article. * Not how it is written, but what I was trying to convey to you.

Thank you very much for reading and responding.