The author says in the introduction that a certain amount of the book is verified. Presence of LLM-use doesn’t inherently make something of less value.
The problem with AI generated content is, it tells me you didn't care enough about the work to do it yourself. To understand it fully, to the point where you don't need or even want to hand the work off to an LLM.
Interacting with AI content makes me feel like I'm consuming something that was created purely for engagement farming. Not that human created content wasn't for engagement farming, but noticing an AI tell breaks the suspension of disbelief in a way. It devalues the relationship between creator and consumer, so that genuine care is not being shared. It's like I'm a cow being milked on an industrial engagement farm.
I at least appreciate the warning on unreviewed generated pages and excluding them from SEO until reviewed, but it's still all untrustworthy spam by default.
I am very happy to see people make use of AI to do previously impractical work, but the quality of writing on this page sounds like a poorly written middle school research paper.
> Not a diary, not a family chronicle - a tool book.
> As reliable as it says on each page - no more and no less.
> Pages without a special note have been editorially reviewed: carefully checked and corrected.
This sounds like an extremely interesting topic but the lack of care in the presentation is disappointing.
> the quality of writing on this page sounds like a poorly written middle school research paper.
But that is typical AI quality. It is a fancified Babelfish 2.0 translator.
Some humans also use AI to "interact" with other humans. They don't seem to
understand that this is a problem for some humans. When a human AI slops me,
I stop all any every further interaction (assuming I can find out that this
human did so. It is not always possible to find that out).
This devalues the scientific value a lot because every line must be checked for correctness and source.
The book itself is very beautiful and I'm thankful for the high quality pictures.
Interacting with AI content makes me feel like I'm consuming something that was created purely for engagement farming. Not that human created content wasn't for engagement farming, but noticing an AI tell breaks the suspension of disbelief in a way. It devalues the relationship between creator and consumer, so that genuine care is not being shared. It's like I'm a cow being milked on an industrial engagement farm.
What scientific value are you looking for?
> Not a diary, not a family chronicle - a tool book.
> As reliable as it says on each page - no more and no less.
> Pages without a special note have been editorially reviewed: carefully checked and corrected.
This sounds like an extremely interesting topic but the lack of care in the presentation is disappointing.
But that is typical AI quality. It is a fancified Babelfish 2.0 translator.
Some humans also use AI to "interact" with other humans. They don't seem to understand that this is a problem for some humans. When a human AI slops me, I stop all any every further interaction (assuming I can find out that this human did so. It is not always possible to find that out).
Reading this in between studying information theory makes a good laugh. This is the most inefficient code I've ever heard of. It's basically unary.
(For background, the first popular optical telegraph wasn't created until ~300 years later, and used 98 visually-distinct coding symbols).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappe_telegraph#Coding_and_de...
https://community.carbide3d.com/t/locking-register-calipers-...
It would be interesting to see what would be involved in making the digital files which would allow re-creating each of these objects.