upvote
I think Technical posts should be written with 3 levels of audiences in mind. Expert, Middle, Beginner. But I guess that is not necessary, since AIs can cut the flab easily.
reply
Yeah, blatant "it's not x, it's y":

> This is not just another incremental release. OpenCV 5 is a major step forward.

reply
I can't say for sure, but there is a suspicious amount of "it's not x, it's y". At least there are no em-dashes.
reply
The diagrams definitely look like LLM output as well
reply
The diagrams were generated with Nano Banana Pro (most probably, or alternatively with ChatGPT Image 2), if you look closely in high contrast areas you'll see artifacts in the background that give it away.

I personally don't mind AI generated content when it's properly reviewed, but unfortunately more often than not the author just glances at the result and decides it's good enough.

Example: https://opencv.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/image-1.jpeg

I'm not knowledgable enough to determine whether this diagram is 100% accurate, but some things look off - the arrows in the bottom left seem superficial, some arrows are connected in weird ways, the mini diagram in AttentionLayer block doesn't look right (it has two Softmax icons and one MatMul icon, while the "before" diagram is the opposite).

reply
Yeah that diagram is all over the place. The arrows on the left branching from the outline of the diagram itself?
reply
deleted
reply
Tested one of the diagrams: "Yes, the digital watermark indicates that most or all of this image was generated or edited using Google AI."
reply
Indeed. Well written, clear, informative and to the point.
reply
As of now, any human effort is still ~= quality. Human-written article signals to me that a certain amount of time was spent on it, which is a proxy for quality. This goes for both text and diagrams.

If someone slapped together an article from an LLM and a few internal documents, that tells me exactly how much they cared about it.

reply
So to-the-point that it comes with a table of contents. Idk if it needs saying that ToCs have legitimate uses, but the number of search results and blog posts having one since ~2022 is, eh, interesting. You come for whatever the headline was and you get a page with thousands of words, split up into five or more chapters, many of them overlapping or a rephrasing of the same question if you've hit a true content farm. This is not that, but I also can't fathom how one could argue that slop is concise as a hallmark

As for being well-written, does that refer to correct use of grammar and no typos, or do you mean that you find that bots write better than humans in any other way?

reply
deleted
reply
It could be the best written, most informative article they've ever read, but anti-ai folks would dismiss it as slop the moment someone told them it was written by ai.
reply
The problem is that we don’t know if a human fact-checked it before release or if we’re the first humans reading it closely.
reply
We don't really know that about human written text either.
reply