zlacker

>>gwintr+(OP)
I don't think this article was written by AI - at least, I am not sure it is - but the way it is divided up, the bullet lists and "key quotes" and breaking a relatively short article into even shorter sections, makes it feel AI generated.

Sounds like an interesting book but the article says remarkably little.

>>ivraat+s5
Thanks for the feedback. I try to keep track of quotes I like when I'm reading. This was an attempt to bundle them up into some useful themes. I'll try to expand into something more opinionated for the next one :)

>>gwintr+V6
Did you use AI to write this review, or was it entirely by hand? The structure, emphases, and conclusion directly match the way ChatGPT tends to answer my requests to summarize/analyze/compare.

>>peterl+zd
I came up with the organization and the quotes but I definitely used AI to help improve it. For example, a friend pointed out that a word was overly flowery so I asked Claude for some alternatives (https://imgur.com/a/k3sQ7lR). I believe not using AI is going to be like not using a word processor soon. AI will help people communicate more, sharpen their thoughts, and learn faster.

This does have me thinking more about what causes things to look AI-generated. The uncanny valley effect. It seems like some people don't like the header image but I thought that was a nice touch to have a visual element.

What's ironic is I normally use ChatGPT but they have a bug that caused my account to be downgraded so I didn't have my "normal" AI tool today.

>>gwintr+3o
What's also ironic is that your review is for a business book about how deferring costs creatively, obsessing over short-term productivity, and placing faddish CEOs as gods atop an engineering organization lead to an inevitable tragic downfall for one of the USA's greatest companies. What's the GE Credit for contemporary times?