On the other hand here we have an amateur that could accelerate their learning and experimentation faster than ever possible before.

I don't know if this necessarily qualifies as "accelerating their learning". The user appears to know what the proof is doing, but not how or why.

They accelerated zero learning. Read the blog.

Feels like a tag-along solution looking for a problem.

How conditioned am I? I thought the title was a play on "em dashes" and when I got into the second paragraph and saw em dashes I immediately flipped to assuming I was reading a story from some never-lived life manifest by a diffusion model. I don't think it is. But that is irrelevant. The point is if our content cannot avoid or ultimately pass the sniff test it won't have the impact we hope.

I think you're over conditioned, I think this should have easily passed the sniff test. I'm not sure how to elaborate on this exactly, I'm just very surprised that you got a false alarm.

Well, it's actually an essay against the thinness of AI slop.

> Erasing the line between the thick and the thin has left us defenseless against slop at the exact moment of its onslaught. Everyone can sense there’s something amiss with the prose that comes out of the machines, but we lack the language to talk about it, and so we’ve converged on the idea that slop simply means using too many em dashes, bullet points, and line breaks.

Management consultants exist as a liability shift. Boards or exec management pay them money, the consultants interview them in private, the consultants give them their ideas back. This provides two things: cover, and political lubricant. Worth every penny when the alternative is completely dysfunctional management teams, or when it is your reputation or job on the line.

Because they're valueless and trivial to produce, but trends are gonna trend.

Another outcome is that none win.

Experimenting with your "scalability?" mean?

I just don't like the idea of an AI company saying that they've added a secret signature that isn't verifiable by any third party to all responses. And we're supposed to both take them at their word, and feed them all the content we want to check so they can continue gobbling up a bunch of fresh works. What is to stop them from saying "Oh yeah, that is ours. We signed it. Trust us."

The obvious conflicts here are wild.

This is an excellent question and the answer is maybe not too surprising. Where mechanics buy their own tools and nurses have little tool purchasing power, developers produce machinery that is costly to change and if they struggle to use something (activation risk) then we can't get that lock-in to stick. DevRel isn't for the individuals, it is for influencing the aggregate so they get their companies stuck with the solution.

I cannot consume any content anywhere without being slapped in the face with an unending stream of OpenAI ads and paid plugs. I'd guess most of that money is going directly to Google and Facebook.