undefined

points

[-]

Needs to? Is there some new law mandating all landing pages must contain exclusively handwritten text that people haven’t heard of?

To your actual point, the people that would take the landing page being written by an LLM negatively tend to be able to evaluate the project on its true merits, while another substantial portion of the demographic for this tool would actually take that (unfortunately, imo) as a positive signal.

Lastly, given the care taken for the docs, it’s pretty likely that any real issues with the language have been caught and changed.

by raincole18 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> You need to rewrite

No they don't. The text is very clearly conveying what this project is about. Not everyone needs to cater to weirdos who are obsessed with policing how other people use LLM.

by john_strinlai18 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

any negative signal you get from the front page should probably end up cancelled out by the whole decades of experience + stanford professor thing.

by rmunn18 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Except that the "this was generated by an LLM" feeling you get from the front page would then make you automatically question whether the "decades of experience + stanford professor thing", as you put it, was true or just an LLM hallucination.

Author would, indeed, be wise to rewrite all the text appearing on the front page with text that he wrote himself.

by john_strinlai18 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

>question whether the "decades of experience + stanford professor thing", as you put it, was true or just an LLM hallucination.

the scs.stanford.edu domain and stanford-scs github should help with that.

by rmunn16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Excellent point, though not everyone pays close enough attention to the domain shown in the browser (if they did, some of the more amateurish phishing attempts would fool a lot fewer people). But yes, anyone who notices the domain will have a clue to the truth.