The post effectively communicated what it needed to. It seemed both written and structured in a way that was optimized for human consumption.

If they used AI to write this and that gave them more time to volunteer their time towards developing this fantastic piece of open source software, then this all seems like a good thing to me.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean. I use plannotator with claude a lot and have much better time, since I asked for a specific styleguide.

I used "CD era MSDN reference and Raymond Chen blogging style" as a starting prompt for the styleguide and my work ability to digest AI plans raised a lot.

Couldn't recommend it more. Humble, insightful and respecting the reader

Serious question, why does it matter to you? Maybe they wrote a draft and reviewed Claude's writing before publishing. Why are we trying to "call out" when AI is assisting us in our work? This is an open source project, not a F500 company. They have limited resources, maybe English isn't their first language.

Just read the post and it didn’t sound AI to me.

Would be kind of funny if someone from the team came out and said it was written by a human.

Am I the only one who expects ALL writing to be generated or at least edited by an LLM going forward? It's like pointing out the fabric in my clothes was not hand woven by a human. Sounding like an AI wrote it is not as valid a criticism as "it was unclear about...", or "It was too long", or "It left out this important point...". Can't we move past the "It sounds like AI..." posts?

I'm sure this received full human attention, even if they used a computer to help write it (be that more traditional text tools or more recent ones).

I disagree, that it's not tiring to hear - because it's deception and lying as it gets used and presented today. I believe it's dangerous to a culture of cooperation that I think cooperation requires trust and truth to support and preserve. I don't want articles to have AI's lying and saying "I did or said" when it was the human who did and said those things.

for example, in this article (if it was truly Claude written):

> Last year, Base UI tagged a beta and a lot of you asked if we are going to replace Radix with it. I said "the worst thing you can do for your production app is switch component libraries". I meant it, and it still holds. So instead of switching, we did the shadcn thing: we rebuilt every component for Base UI, kept the same abstraction, and let you choose. December brought npx shadcn create with both libraries. January brought full Base UI docs.

If an AI wrote this, why and how is it pretending to be a human and the humans on the team at that? That's impersonation, and it's a lie and deceptive. I personally don't want a culture where my AI agent is talking as though its me, when a pro-cooperative and honesty/truth preserving culture would instead say "My human said" or at least label correctly that this is an AI acting on behalf of a human.

[dead]

I hate the marketing-selling-linkedn style as much as anyone, but I don't think it's an LLM thing in particular. It's a style that existed before LLMs and it's very easy to make LLMs avoid it with one or two prompt paragraphs.

For what it's worth, I didn't get that vibe reading this post.

Isn't that a bit like working in the movie industry and no longer being able to enjoy films because you are always thinking about how they were made and noticing their flaws?