Alleged author here - on my regular account. Thanks for the feedback. I have been quite upfront about the use of AI in the foreword. I have severe inattentive ADHD and have used AI to take my writings and present them in a way in which I feel are much more coherent overall.
The actual criticisms you have about the content however, I'd like to challenge:
The "adding up to one" is just a simplified gloss over softmax. It's very possible it reads poorly, and thats on me - not LLM gibberish.
As for the incoherence - I have to totally disagree. You have merged the 2 things the post keeps apart - capacity and attention over it. That a model can swallow a schema and write code is a competence humans share. We have been doing it for decades. Besides, the claim was never about us sharing capacity (other than stating it is always bounded) - it was about our attention failing in eerily similar ways.
So, AI slop, no. AI assisted, absolutely. It's sad that some judge the "who" more important than the "what" - especially for this kind of writing. But it's fair feedback nonetheless. I'll see what else I can do with assisting my delivery.
> You have merged the 2 things the post keeps apart - capacity and attention over it.
Maybe you just write like an LLM.
You’re absolutely right! ;) Honestly - there has been so much human-in-the-loop I wouldn't be surprised if the fine-tuning went both ways.
I think the problem with "AI assisted" is that it triggers the same alarm bells as AI slop, justified or not, so many readers just turn off. I personally rather read "shitty" writing than AI assisted writing.
It’s a fair criticism. Maybe I should have both: my source and the tidied version. Kind of like the light/dark mode toggle but for shit/slop!