alt Hacker NewsI'm judging the ideas in your post, not its form.
Your claim that suspected AI assistance proves the author isn't interested -- and therefore that the work is probably superficial -- is unsupported.
The article presents a working experiment, explains why naive decoding fails, describes the beam-search fix, and links the code.
Dismissing all that with presumptuous personal speculation and banal boilerplate drive-by anti-AI snark adds absolutely nothing to the conversation -- and that is intrinsically poor form.
You couldn't even find enough strength to criticize anything beyond the form, while your own form is lackluster.
Ironically, an LLM could have written your comment and improved its form without losing anything distinctive.
> I'm judging the ideas in your post, not its form.
and simultaneously you write that 'my form is lackluster' and that 'an LLM could have written your comment and improved its form without losing anything distinctive'. We are having ourselves a small contradiction, aren't we.
Be my guest, enjoy chatbot writing and drowning in slop. But don't encroach upon my freedom to protest it.