Upfront: I read your article because I was genuinely interested. Im genuinely annoyed when hackernews filled top comments that complain about llm assisted articles.
Having said that, consider taking more care when authoring articles with the help of llms.
There's a lot of nonsense in this piece that distracts from the overall point you're trying to make. Things such as
- "the output price is frozen at the anchor
- "
This post is that gap collapsing to zero and the discovery that the real fight was never about price."
- "Strip away everything and the economics reduce to a single line"
- "Feed that into the equation and unit cost is a hyperbola in utilization"
- "the plot twist"
- "Two data points deserve a hard stare."
- "Caveat, because the numbers deserve it."
- "Sizing the prize: what does one box actually hold?"
And so on..
Nobody likes this, and it diminishes your credibility as an author. Llms output stuff like this because they are confabulating prose between facts. It spaces out arguments and adds text, but it's just meaningless nonsense that distracts from the overall point.
It sounds like you did a real thing here and that you might have some interesting results to share. If you presented them clearly in your own voice, more people will be interested.
This was on Day 1 and I didn't try SGlang's Dspark. Might do if someone is ready to spend some bucks in it
Upfront: I read your article because I was genuinely interested. Im genuinely annoyed when hackernews filled top comments that complain about llm assisted articles.
Having said that, consider taking more care when authoring articles with the help of llms.
There's a lot of nonsense in this piece that distracts from the overall point you're trying to make. Things such as
- "the output price is frozen at the anchor
- " This post is that gap collapsing to zero and the discovery that the real fight was never about price."
- "Strip away everything and the economics reduce to a single line"
- "Feed that into the equation and unit cost is a hyperbola in utilization"
- "the plot twist"
- "Two data points deserve a hard stare."
- "Caveat, because the numbers deserve it."
- "Sizing the prize: what does one box actually hold?"
And so on..
Nobody likes this, and it diminishes your credibility as an author. Llms output stuff like this because they are confabulating prose between facts. It spaces out arguments and adds text, but it's just meaningless nonsense that distracts from the overall point.
It sounds like you did a real thing here and that you might have some interesting results to share. If you presented them clearly in your own voice, more people will be interested.