Brittany Day Still Uses Bots to 'Write' Articles (But Not All the Time)
First and foremost, to start on a relatively positive tone with modest proposals, I'd like to commend (or cautiously praise) Brittany Day for not always using bots (not anymore!) to write articles. Lately I've been scanning all of her output and about 80% of the time it seems like Day legitimately wrote some text. It seems like she invested time in it, even picked some relevant images. But taking the "Brittany Day"-flagged (or labeled) pages and passing them through LLM scanners/analysers, I still occasionally see what's determine to be fake (or large portions that are fake). Here's a new example:
This isn't the sole example from the past week that's a hybrid determined to be mostly slop (we saw but did not mention here several other examples):
There's probably no "legitimate" use of LLMs in composition. The practice is inherently unethical and problematic not just because it manifests misinformation, for which no person/individual can be held accountable (except perhaps Scam Altman).
Our suggestion to Brittany Day is, quit the LLM hype and put in some effort to only ever write properly, in one's own words, not regurgitating slop. We'll keep an eye for now. Any resort or retreat to LLMs basically tarnishes the entire site (and company behind it); it leads to a presumption of plagiarism, however "state-of-the-art" this plagiarism may seem. Even Google admits this is hype and therefore untenable.
If you do not understand something, then don't write about it. Don't invoke LLMs to "fill the gap/s"; they lack a notion of knowledge or facts. They just spew out words without any comprehension of these.
Nothing would please us more than not having to write anything about this anymore. At the moment the Web is being drowned out by fake articles about Linux, and many are anti-Linux (because Microsoft-controlled LLMs generate those). █