The irony of a post about a port primarily written by Claude having been primarily written by Claude on a website primarily designed by Claude. Come on.
back
2 comments
Claude (and Codex) designed the site, mostly because I'm not a UI coder; if I'd designed the site nobody'd want to read it but me, simply thanks to the UX.
And I have a full-time job and more; I draft with an LLM's assistance and revise with another LLM (and other humans where possible) because I'm just arrogant enought o think that what I think might be useful to others. If it's not useful to you, I get it. Such is life.
Why can't you just publish the prompt instead? Do you not see how LLMs subtly alter your original message and erase your voice? They fill gaps that didn't exist, they create syllogisms that make no sense, and the voice is now so ridiculously AIdiosyncratic that it makes my eyes boil!
If you have a message that takes 100 words to say, do not use a LLM to add 400 words to it, this isn't a school assignment! Stretching a spaghetti does not yield more spaghetti, it just makes a mess!
Where is the value the LLM adds? Grammar? Vocabulary? The price you pay is you sound like everyone else and your original message is lost in the noise.
As far as publishing "the prompt" - there's no "the prompt." The draft was put together and expanded over a set of interactions with an LLM and other people over the space of about six hours. "The prompt" would have been about twelve pages long and unreadable. Funny as heck, but unreadable.
(If you're really interested, you can check the logs in the site and find the actual interaction that started the article out. It was a comment from someone else, and it got me thinking.)
Heh. Funny thing: I've been writing online and professionally for literal decades, since around 2002 or so, and the LLMs tend to change my actual writing voice relatively little and usually in positive ways, since they say I meander too much.
Your process loses your unique voice. The content was OK, but too verbose, and needed data on other rust ports of similar scope.
The issue is the quippy titles, “something - aside - continue” phrasing, and other constructions are feel like they or actually are wholly LLM written. I find a high correlation to this and low density fluff. The author did not have 10 paragraphs of things to say, but used an LLM to inflate a short outline to that. We would all of been better off with a tighter document - either human written or better prompted.
It's not about that. Me as a reader wants to read you as a human, with all of its colors and nuances.
These days due to usage of LLMs I developed (unknowingly) an LLM detector when reading these. I actually get distracted.
So please, I believe you do have something to tell to the world, but please take it slower. No need to rush. I'd rather have something to read uniquely made by you.
I agree with the others - I'm sure that you've provided your own input, but Claude's writing and design style is so overwhelmingly dominant that those who have spent time with it can immediately recognise it, and it makes it hard to take at face value that you were the primary author, even if you were.
For your workflow, I'd suggest drafting with a LLM to help you find the right balance of content, and then throwing all of that out and writing it yourself. Otherwise, it won't sound like you.
To be fair, who cares about ai slop websites? To be honest, they're often better than the average webdev garbage. Language runtimes are held to a much, much, higher standard.