In the case of commentary, an author who uses AI to converse about "his" work indicates a fundamental misunderstanding/lack of comprehension thereof which leads to
The case of code, where an author who is unqualified to have built a certain product himself is thereby unqualified to review AI generated code implementing said product.
The author's post features the quotation of "Brokers", whose quotation has no logical basis except in established LLM generational norms. Furthermore the excessive colons following each feature are also typical of generated text.
The code is not much better. As I spotted rather quickly, the
#define private public
is a huge code smell; for those unfamiliar with C++ or OOP it is an equivalent blunder to #define true false
or #define while if
And points to a pretty large disconnect between the author's ability to prompt a model and their ability to evaluate the quality of the model's response.That said, while I'm no fan of slop I don't feel like the constant accusations of AI we now see bandied about are constructive. The general vibe at this point feels like name calling or even a witch hunt.
Bad or lazy writing should be called out regardless of how it was produced. Same for code. I'd say that "#define private public" stands on its own as case in point; how it was arrived at seems almost entirely irrelevant.