It didn't seem AI like to me. It doesn't seem to use bulletpoints in similar fashion as usually LLMs do, paragraphs are differently organized and differing lengths, etc. It was a bit too random to be AI in my opinion.
> In fact, the linked rehash feels uncanny, using similar words and phrases from the original, that are otherwise unusual. Made by AI?
Also odd is the expression 'jobs to be done'. At first glance this seemed like an allusion to this famous 'Jobs to be Done' Clay Christian talk [1] (well worth the 5 minute watch). But AFICT it's just coincidental use of the phrase.
That seems to be about 5000 words, and the submitted "summary" is about a third of that. Why summarise when one is going to make something of nearly equal length?
Here is the original paper https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx8/52/10629161/10629169.pdf. It’s not much longer and I found it easier to read.
In fact, the linked rehash feels uncanny, using similar words and phrases from the original, that are otherwise unusual. Made by AI?
It didn't seem AI like to me. It doesn't seem to use bulletpoints in similar fashion as usually LLMs do, paragraphs are differently organized and differing lengths, etc. It was a bit too random to be AI in my opinion.
> In fact, the linked rehash feels uncanny, using similar words and phrases from the original, that are otherwise unusual. Made by AI?
I think it's just the author reusing those words?
Also odd is the expression 'jobs to be done'. At first glance this seemed like an allusion to this famous 'Jobs to be Done' Clay Christian talk [1] (well worth the 5 minute watch). But AFICT it's just coincidental use of the phrase.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfGtw2C95Ms&t=28s
That seems to be about 5000 words, and the submitted "summary" is about a third of that. Why summarise when one is going to make something of nearly equal length?
They mention “high quality code” without defining it. I assume this is internally well defined?
And why is that not a goal of the "test team"?