On my knees begging that the developers of AI detectors use them on their own writing and that at least pretended to mask the obvious LLM cliches in their blog posts.
The market has been creeping into more and more facets of our lives, with delirious results: social networks are the market mediating family and friendship, dating apps are the market mediating meeting strangers, etc. I wouldn't expect that the answer to these problems would be letting the market mediate even more aspects of our lives.
> These people didn't get promoted or hired because of nepotism. A lot of them moved up the engineering ladder and are familiar with how software engineering works and the incentives involved.
You probably have a great deal of understanding and knowledge about Git, and this book might be a good resource.
I'm not asking you to do anything differently, and yet I think it's important to realize that people have a deep aversion to text that appears to be LLM generated.
By "shame", I meant that just from a skim of the contents of this book, it can be hard to distinguish it from any other LLM generated text by any other author who has no idea what they're talking about.
That makes people (like me) inclined to discount what it has to say, potentially losing out on good technical content.
> The book is definitely LLM assisted authoring yet it also has great content, so not sure we can immediately jump to shaming it entirely for being slop.
Personally I have an extremely hard time reading text like this and it makes me lose trust in the author. Publishing potentially useful Git knowledge this way is a shame.
Surprise, surprise, another piece of LLM-generated slop on the front page of HN.
From chapter 1:
> When Git slows down, engineers adapt in bad ways. They stop asking questions the history could answer. They batch work to avoid sync cost. They keep messy branches alive longer, postpone cleanup, and treat the repository like something slightly dangerous.
> Once machines start producing code at machine cadence, the model from this book does not break. What changes is the pace: more branches, more commits, more automation, and more surrounding metadata. The traffic gets louder, and the features that keep Git legible under pressure move from "nice to have" to "essential."
> These stop looking like side optimizations. They are what keep machine-scale Git traffic usable.
I feel I have a much more adversarial relationship with articles, comments and blogs online. I've been seeing old colleagues or acquaintances that I used to admire start to publish clearly AI generated blogs and I've noticed that my respect for them has taken a nosedive.
The online world feels much less useful now and I've been trying to read more physical books and to generally spend less time online (unfortunately one can't escape slop, as I've already seen clearly generated illustrations and photographs in billboards and subway adverts).
I hope OP took more effort in making Viva understand the problem than the obvious zero effort it took writing this post, given it is completely AI generated.
I would suggest reading into the history of South Korea after the war. Nothing suggests to me that it was a good outcome. As a small sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising