zlacker

> Why did you include that list of sponsors at the bottom of your post?

The paragraph immediately preceding the list begins with a sentence mentioning the sponsors. How did you not see this?

> What's with the "contingent on employment status or ideological alignment" bit about? That's not been mentioned anywhere else so far.

“not been mentioned anywhere else” is false. If you click on the PDF linked to in this very post it mentions that only full time employees of RubyCentral maintained access to their GitHub account.

I find it ironic that you’re so quick to question whether something is LLM-authored given that you write so much about using LLMs.

>>angora+(OP)
I'm quick to question precisely because I can see LLM telltale hints in the text - in this case the "not just X but Y" pattern.

I don't mind if it's LLM-assisted text if everything in it is a reviewed and accurate representation of the point the author is trying to make.

But if the LLM throws in extra junk tha distracts from the conversation and the author fails to catch that in review, that's bad.

I think it's likely I was mistaken here - that the author either didn't use an LLM or used it for minor style tweaks but ensured that it was making the points they wanted to make.

>>simonw+bh
There is no “extra junk that distracts from the conversation” in the post you’re responding to, and I and others are trying to point that out to you. You don’t seem to be responding to those points much if at all.

>>angora+io1
I said "I think it's likely I was mistaken here", what more do you want?

(Personally I'd still like to see the author clarify if they used an LLM or not, but that's more for my own personal curiosity at this point, to check if my radar needs adjusting.)