[oalders]

>Meanwhile, this article was written by Claude

The prose was written by me, with the research being done by Claude and also clearly attributed. I left Claude's research as a series of bullet points so that it would be clear that I'm not passing off an LLM's work as my own, but if anyone wants to dig deeper, they have some starting points to consider.

I don't publish prose written by an LLM for the same reason I would not have an LLM solve a crossword puzzle for me -- there's no joy in that.

[blixt]

Then I apologize, it seemed to me you wrote that part, but I guess I was reading Claude output.

[oalders]

No worries. :) I did struggle a little with how to make it obvious that the machine output was not my own. I set it off inside horizontal rules and I did add some prose before and after to say when Claude's output began and ended. If anyone just jumps around using the table of contents, they'll miss that, though. (Not saying that was the case for you).

I had considered putting the research into a gist, but I don't want to have to rely on a 3rd party to keep something that's integral to my post online. Seemed more cohesive to keep it all in one place.

What I was trying to get across was that I had some basis for the points I was trying to make and wasn't just handwaving about it, but I also didn't want to spend endless hours whittling it down. We're all busy people and I see now that it's entirely possible to skim the post and assume it's some low effort word salad. It may be a word salad, but it wasn't low effort. ;)

[inigyou]

The article was obviously written by an LLM, it's obviously from the overall structure as well as individual sentences. Maybe you've been exposed to so much LLM text that you write identically to one, in which case, yikes!

[dymk]

The parts outside of the “Claude wrote this” guards seem plausibly written by a human, it’s just that 70% of the article is in the “Claude wrote this” guard.