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.
Do you often experience persecutory delusions in front of screens?
Immense amount of human care goes into projects that use AI, and usually the human care goes into the aspects that matter most. AI helps pull projects like this from years into the future, into the present. Time travel leaves some scorch marks, sure. More effort will get attracted into the effort, or the idea will finish its expression and the host organism will move onwards.
AI is being used for the most part to shit out as much “content” as possible in order to show ads, sell courses and other products (bonus points if what is sold is itself also pure AI slop), or to finish tasks at work with as little effort as can be done, so that boss man is impressed by the velocity. “Who cares about quality? This is 2026, bro.”
The actual thoughtful use of AI is the minority case. Not the default. We humans are lazy, and when we can get away with less effort we put as little effort as we can into things.
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.
Maybe this is because of the translation, I guess the author has written the non-English version first and then got it translated into English with AI, adding some additional explanations if necessary.
That thought certainly crossed my mind, but having worked with people using LLMs for this purpose successfully, this instead comes across as taking a simple idea and asking {model} to expand this two or three sentence idea into a web page.
> 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).
I don't like to frame it in terms of, "this person is using AI, so I am no longer interested in communicating", because it is not really the AI that is the problem. It is the lack of effort put into communication with another human. AI can be extremely helpful for some people (e.g., proofreading text if one's native language isn't English). But this use case is almost never a problem if done carefully because the original ideas were all there in the beginning.
I focus my frustration on writing that is circular, vague, unnecessarily explanatory, etc. In my experience this is a symptom of the fact that there were no original ideas to begin with.
for back in the day this knight had pretty decent 3D perspective rendering skills I mean you can knock the chair but there are a lot worse illustrations and devotional art from the time.
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.
Immense amount of human care goes into projects that use AI, and usually the human care goes into the aspects that matter most. AI helps pull projects like this from years into the future, into the present. Time travel leaves some scorch marks, sure. More effort will get attracted into the effort, or the idea will finish its expression and the host organism will move onwards.
AI is being used for the most part to shit out as much “content” as possible in order to show ads, sell courses and other products (bonus points if what is sold is itself also pure AI slop), or to finish tasks at work with as little effort as can be done, so that boss man is impressed by the velocity. “Who cares about quality? This is 2026, bro.”
The actual thoughtful use of AI is the minority case. Not the default. We humans are lazy, and when we can get away with less effort we put as little effort as we can into things.
Couple of immediate examples:
- The Codex has 154 pages. 127 of them have been reviewed, 27 not yet. - Each of the 154 pages gets a page of its own.
If an author doesn’t have time to write. Why should I give up my time to read?
> Löffelholz does not open his book with a showpiece. He opens it with a practical tool you can adjust: choose a size, clamp it, work.
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).
I focus my frustration on writing that is circular, vague, unnecessarily explanatory, etc. In my experience this is a symptom of the fact that there were no original ideas to begin with.
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.