zlacker

>>segfau+(OP)
Is it just me or does the formatting of this feel like ChatGPT (numbered lists, "Key Takeaways", and just the general phrasing of things)? It's not necessarily an issue if you checked over it properly but if you did use it then it might be good to mention that for transparency, because people can tell anyway and it might feel slightly otherwise

(or maybe you just have a similar writing style)

>>circui+s4
> might be good to mention that for transparency, because people can tell anyway and it might feel slightly otherwise

Devil's advocate: why does it matter (apart from "it feels wrong")? As long as the conclusions are sound, why is it relevant whether AI helped with the writing of the report?

>>markso+Q4
It is relevant because it wastes time and adds nothing of substance. An AI can only output as much information as was inputted into it. Using it to write a text then just makes it unnecessarily more verbose.

The last few sections could have been cut entirely and nothing would have been lost.

Edit: In the process of writing this comment, the author removed 2 sections (and added an LLM acknowledgement), of which I referred to in my previous statement. To the author, thank you for reducing the verbosity with that.