EDIT: After seeing the comments, I am realizing how little I ever rewrote my own writings, an admitted weakness of mine. It was the blindspot behind which I made my reply!

Maybe PRs these days need to "test" the human? "Explain how this code works, without AI, or it gets rejected."

That is consistent for both pages, but inconsistent with how they seem to be ordered within the text.

I guess the chapters were re-arranged post-script, with the "Storytellers" chapter inserted between them later?

I've joked with friends its the "Farm to table" for thoughts, at least as much as it can be. Obviously you can just recite a LLM output, but that's more work IMO.

Also, what’s his problem with the “Witch Priestess from the North?”

EDIT: Oh, the blue backgrounds are links. https://jacobfilipp.com/new-lord/

I've long been frustrated by the lack of support, but within the last few months had a change of perspective. I realized that this is actually a blessing! This language is the only remaining text on the Internet that I read and am sure is not LLM generated. And when spoken, I believe much less infected by LLM-isms that English.

I've done some work building an OCR corpus, but actually stopped now and don't plan to complete it. Working OCR would unlock text that the AI labs would slurp up, train on, and improve their infinite slop generators. We don't need that.

Right at the end too. Shame.

Better write it out again...

Love how the handwriting changes and you can see the author get into flow. My reading sped up to match, like I was right with the author as they wrote. The whole thing was a beautifully connected, human experience. Bravo!

I'm not sure how much actual advice one can take from this essay though beyond "use personal commitment (e.g. time or presence) to signal importance/care" and "go offline" (aka touch grass)

The reality is people don't always care if a human poured their heart and soul into something. Sometimes they do, but not always.

It's like lamented handwritten script when the printing press was invented....

I would go further and quantify how much of the message is AI in situations where humans edit it.

Some of his examples were tongue in cheek. But even handwriting feels a little too laborious when what we lost that needs replacement is manual typing.

I've also started noticing people annotating a whole doc "written by humans" to try to convey effort and care. That's fine for some things but do that too often and a reader will be left with two thoughts:

1. Did they actually write this by hand? No way 2. Should they have written some of this with AI? Seems like a waste of time formatting some of this when they could've been spending their time thinking critically

Simple algorithm for not wasting your time:

1) By default nothing is valuable or worth your while 2) Aggressively hunt for signals indicating potential worth (ancient pedigree and/or critical acclaim being most valuable) 3) Choose maybe 10% of what survives for actual reading, scan some others and dump the rest

Oh, and let LLMs summarize near-zero information articles like this one.

At the end of the day your toil is roughly meaningless to those around you, they only truly care about the outcomes -- both material and emotional -- for themselves. What do I get and how did you make me feel seems to be the only currency between humans, maybe it wasn't always this way but it sure seems to be near universal now.

Edit: also the how this was made was really quite clever :)

If you cannot demonstrate why I should continue reading by the quality of your writing alone, I'm not going to finish what you have written. I put down maybe half of the books I start without finishing, plenty of them written well before 2022 just because I am not enjoying them, or find the writing bad, or boring, or overly pedantic, or a million other reasons that are specific to me and my own bad taste.

I hope we can get to a point where people will stop clutching their pearls over AI writing, I have no interest in entertaining the theater of proof. Writing is either useful or not useful, good or bad for the reader, and making the reading experience worse to prove your worthiness as a writer provides me no value. If you need to be reassured that something was not written by a large language model, and that's enough for you to consider something worth reading your standards are lower than I will ever be comfortable dropping mine too.

...which reminded me of this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qyk5U2p-msk ("I must be a narcissist / God knows that I can’t resist / To make a song and dance about it").

The exception is when it's about a niche I care about, e.g. an analysis of opening trends of early world chess champions. I'll read AI on that for an hour.

My sense is that, for most writing, it's fundamentally interpersonal, the information is about the author as much as it is about the world.

Maybe this flood of slop will cause people to care more about the substance of the writing, not the perspectives of the writing.

I am sad this infected code documentation and PR descriptions. This kind of stuff used to exist in order keep managers/executives busy not to keep engineers busy...

now more than ever can fake it

If you want to stop the dysfunction become involved in your government and get stronger antitrust legislation passed. OR you could write everything by hand, take pictures and pretend image models don't exist.

But what a great idea nevertheless - proof of care! Instead of checking if you are human and not a malicious bot, they shoud require a proof that you do care about what you are going to access. Like - I don't know - write by hand on the screen a short essay on how accessing the site will make you happy.

EDIT: Or - better yet - make a tattoo with an URL of the site you want to access, and then upload a selfie.