Be honest. Did you write this comment with an LLM?
Why should it matter beyond correctness of the content, which you and the author need to evaluate either way.
Personally, I'm exhausted with this sentiment. There's no value in questioning how something gets written, only the output matters. Otherwise we'd be asking the same about pencils, typewriters, dictionaries and spellcheck in some pointless persuit of purity.
What, surely you’re not implying that bangers like the following are GPT artifacts!? “The changes aren’t just cosmetic; they represent a fundamental shift in how we approach server-side JavaScript development.”
True! But writing an egregiously erroneous blogpost used to take actual effort. The existence of a blogpost was a form of proof of work that a human at least thought they knew enough about a topic to write it down and share it.
Now the existence of this blogpost is only evidence that the author has sufficient AI credits they are able to throw some release notes at Claude and generate some markdown, which is not really differentiating.
I'm not sure - a lot of the top comments are saying that this article is great and they learned a lot of new things. Which is great, as long as the things they learned are true things.
To the latter: Absolutely all of it, though I put my money on Claude, it has more of its prominent patterns.
Be honest. Did you write this comment with an LLM?
Why should it matter beyond correctness of the content, which you and the author need to evaluate either way.
Personally, I'm exhausted with this sentiment. There's no value in questioning how something gets written, only the output matters. Otherwise we'd be asking the same about pencils, typewriters, dictionaries and spellcheck in some pointless persuit of purity.
What, surely you’re not implying that bangers like the following are GPT artifacts!? “The changes aren’t just cosmetic; they represent a fundamental shift in how we approach server-side JavaScript development.”
And now we need to throw the entire article out because we have no idea whether any of these features are just hallucinations.
You don't know if the author knows what they're talking about with or without AI in the picture.
True! But writing an egregiously erroneous blogpost used to take actual effort. The existence of a blogpost was a form of proof of work that a human at least thought they knew enough about a topic to write it down and share it.
Now the existence of this blogpost is only evidence that the author has sufficient AI credits they are able to throw some release notes at Claude and generate some markdown, which is not really differentiating.
I think we have enough node developers here to know its truthfulness.
I'm not sure - a lot of the top comments are saying that this article is great and they learned a lot of new things. Which is great, as long as the things they learned are true things.