I want to read on this subject, but it’s very clear this article was heavily written by LLMs.
Reading it feels like a waste of time. I could just (a) look up 1st hand sources or (b) have an interactive lesson from the same model that helped write this.
When using gen ai for writing, you still have to work fairly hard to remove the fluff, bloviating and other cruft. Without a surplus of content to narrow down more concisely, it usually adds fat to the writing.
You’re often better off asking it to be a very disagreeable editor than asking it to do the writing or editing itself.
This post is all bullet points! I feel like all the interesting bits were left as an exercise for the reader. Where do we define steady state? How do we corrupt storage? Injecting CSS to break layouts?
I felt that I was reading someone’s outline for a post. I also think some of these ideas are a bit daft but it’s hard to critique when it’s just a bullet point.
What do you think is the right way to look at this? Is it chaos testing that you're saying is nonsense? I am working on an app for work where reliability is a core feature and I've been looking for resources on how to ensure the frontend is resilient to mistakes and oversights.
Reading it feels like a waste of time. I could just (a) look up 1st hand sources or (b) have an interactive lesson from the same model that helped write this.
When using gen ai for writing, you still have to work fairly hard to remove the fluff, bloviating and other cruft. Without a surplus of content to narrow down more concisely, it usually adds fat to the writing.
You’re often better off asking it to be a very disagreeable editor than asking it to do the writing or editing itself.
reply