[abnercoimbre]

And this article is largely LLM-generated. Is that ethical?

[UnreachableCode]

Doesn't that still ring true with the ideas in the article though? His ethics were in the right place, even if he did use AI to write it?

[abnercoimbre]

Someone paid a chef to make a fancy pizza, then told his friend "look what I made!"

The author's message would've landed if he demonstrated human authorship. Like this blog post [0] attaching a notebook page or my own [1] video proof.

[0] https://vinxis.moe/posts/writing-2026-07-15

[1] https://abner.page/post/are-we-harold-bloom/

[gchamonlive]

Proof? Or are you treating a hunch as if it's fact?

[cryo32]

It's so banal and middle-of-the-road it has to be AI generated.

[gchamonlive]

Can I take another stab at it? I take back what I said in my flagged comment. Could you elaborate on why the ethical points and the erosion of leadership in the article are banal and middle-of-the-road?

[cryo32]

With pleasure. The article is pretty much on point but the prose makes it difficult to build sympathy with it. It feels sterile, lacking in conviction and generally detracts from the point. It's an emotional plea without any emotion.

[gchamonlive]

I understand and aesthetics is pretty underestimated. If you want to get a message across, the form, the medium and the public needs to be accounted for. In this sense I totally agree.

But that kinda reminds me of the Chinese room thought experiment [1]. Is there anywhere in the latent space of the LLM a result that takes into account all these factors cited before? What kind of prompts or prompt orchestration would be necessary to achieve it? Would we still be able to tell the difference?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

[andersmurphy]

> The bottom line

Is how Claude ends 90% of articles. So yes LLM slop.

[gchamonlive]

Wish you could read yourself. This is exactly like how horoscope works. "Born in October? Oh, you must be really insecure!"