[nubg]

nobody writes like that. the article is based on a prompt, which i would much rather read, instead of the ironed out version that the llm produced

[petesergeant]

> the article is based on a prompt, which i would much rather read

I would much rather read someone's carefully written and LLM-assissted article than shallow and lazy dismissals like this one. What, precisely, do you feel you've added to the conversation here?

[nubg]

Why not publish the prompt anyway and let readers decide if they want to run it through an LLM (maybe next year's LLM, which will probably be better)?

[petesergeant]

What do you think this magical prompt will be, exactly, that perfectly represents what was almost certainly an iterative rather than spot process on the author's part?

[jonas_scholz]

also slightly disrespectful to think that this was a single prompt, but ok:D

[petesergeant]

Exactly that

[jonas_scholz]

fine, i agree that this doesnt sound like me. But the content is correct and not a hallucination!

[nubg]

so did you write this post with the assistance of LLMs?

[Aldipower]

Could you annoy someone else please.