88 comments and nobody has noted that the article itself looks like AI slop?
Lots of signals here: the writing style, bland and wishy-washy use of statistics, bullets and formatting that arbitrarily organize without adding value, the rule-of-threes clauses, and redundant details, the intro summary list, the lack of sourcing links, and “written” by an author whose bio specifically mentions AI.
I specifically looked for backup to the assertion about higher FPS and it’s just a random unsourced percentage. Maybe it’s true but this article has no value as a source.
I’ve noticed that AI slop articles tend to have a a TLDR right before the table of contents. I’m an aquarist and they’ve made it damn near impossible to get good info on fish, taking the first few pages of results before I get a forum post with useful info.
88 comments and nobody has noted that the article itself looks like AI slop?
Lots of signals here: the writing style, bland and wishy-washy use of statistics, bullets and formatting that arbitrarily organize without adding value, the rule-of-threes clauses, and redundant details, the intro summary list, the lack of sourcing links, and “written” by an author whose bio specifically mentions AI.
I specifically looked for backup to the assertion about higher FPS and it’s just a random unsourced percentage. Maybe it’s true but this article has no value as a source.
Bold to assume that anyone is reading more than the title haha
but it confirms my preconceived biases…
God damn slop fuckin everywhere. Tnx man.
I’ve noticed that AI slop articles tend to have a a TLDR right before the table of contents. I’m an aquarist and they’ve made it damn near impossible to get good info on fish, taking the first few pages of results before I get a forum post with useful info.