this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
23 points (81.1% liked)

Books

7767 readers
69 users here now

A community for all things related to Books.

Rules

  1. Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
  2. No spam. All posts should be related to books.
  3. No self promotion.

Official Bingo Posts:

Related Communities

Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I agree with the points this article makes but it was clearly written by an LLM and it's like torture to read. Coming from someone who's sick of hearing people call things "slop", this is a prime example. And it's especially irritating because it actually is expressing a pretty balanced take on things underneath all that cringey dramatic presentation.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 day ago

It doesn't even remotely sound like it was written by an LLM.

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What makes you say so? This was not clear to me. There is at least a good degree of human editing involved

[–] tynansdtm@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It wasn't immediately obvious to me but there's an entire paragraph about libraries changing and then eight paragraphs later the same idea with completely different phrasing repeats without referencing the first occurrence. I'm not saying humans are incapable of redundancy, but AI are prone to it and such a prolific author should probably be skilled at avoiding it.

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Just one paragraph? I understand why that feels like an indicator of LLM use these days, but that actually sounds like a fairly common mistake human writers might make. Author decides to move a topic to a different section, copies it and rewords to suite new placement and forgets to remove the section from it's original spot. A pro shouldn't be making that kind of mistake, but it's a particularly difficult one to spot in reviewing the article. It's an error that is especially difficult to spot if you're the author because of your own familiarity with the article. The only effective way I found to combat those kinds of mistakes in my writing was to delay my own review of my writing (sometimes as long as a day or two) after significant writing or edits. Clearly that strategy is unworkable in a fast paced journalism setting, where that kind of space between writing and editing cannot meet deadlines.

This would look a lot different than the similar AI slop tell I see in news articles that repeat the headline across multiple paragraphs in a row with different wording and no new details or clarifications. I don't see any of this in the article. I could not find the repeated paragraphs that you're talking about. Calling back to previous points in an essay with various subsections, even repeating important points and details is often just good writing.