I don't think this article was written by AI - at least, I am not sure it is - but the way it is divided up, the bullet lists and "key quotes" and breaking a relatively short article into even shorter sections, makes it feel AI generated.
Sounds like an interesting book but the article says remarkably little.
Thanks for the feedback. I try to keep track of quotes I like when I'm reading. This was an attempt to bundle them up into some useful themes. I'll try to expand into something more opinionated for the next one :)
Just reiterating what cogogo stated in a sibling, but the thing that threw me was the 'review' in the title. I was expecting some critique or comparison but instead saw summary and highlights.
I enjoyed the summary and highlights, and learnt about some details I would likely have never otherwise seen, so I think it's just the framing that seemed 'off'.
Depending on your intent consider reframing or adding critique, but I think the content is good and I appreciate you making it.
[edit] There is some critique and comparison in the opening: "Shakespearean tragedy" and "The result is equal parts invention history, boardroom knife-fight, and forensic accounting thriller." but I think these are the only ones. I would love to know why you think this, and what you like about your "favorite ideas" (and any things you didn't like!)
Did you use AI to write this review, or was it entirely by hand? The structure, emphases, and conclusion directly match the way ChatGPT tends to answer my requests to summarize/analyze/compare.
I came up with the organization and the quotes but I definitely used AI to help improve it. For example, a friend pointed out that a word was overly flowery so I asked Claude for some alternatives (https://imgur.com/a/k3sQ7lR). I believe not using AI is going to be like not using a word processor soon. AI will help people communicate more, sharpen their thoughts, and learn faster.
This does have me thinking more about what causes things to look AI-generated. The uncanny valley effect. It seems like some people don't like the header image but I thought that was a nice touch to have a visual element.
What's ironic is I normally use ChatGPT but they have a bug that caused my account to be downgraded so I didn't have my "normal" AI tool today.
While I'm certainly no stranger to letting an LLM help me streamline some technical documentation, I also think it will eventually grind down everything to a sea of "lowest common denominator" speech.
A friend of mine recently used an LLM to help write a condolence card, and I found that appalling.
Who I am as a person is the sum of my experiences, and I'm not even talking about the great cornerstones but random stuff.
Like that one time I accidentally still had our cordless house phone in my pocket as a kid when I went to play in the woods and lost it there.
There are thousands of these little things, and it's what makes you unique and influences how you talk and think.
I am saddened by the thought of "not using AI will be like not using a word processor soon". It will grind away all the little weirdness, all the little unique aspects.
I would have loved to read "apotheosis". I didn't even know that word!
I love those unique things. The cordless phone is a great example!
I understand that fear of the sea of lowest common denominator. My hope is that it will help us create even better writing, music, etc. and appreciate it even more.
What's also ironic is that your review is for a business book about how deferring costs creatively, obsessing over short-term productivity, and placing faddish CEOs as gods atop an engineering organization lead to an inevitable tragic downfall for one of the USA's greatest companies. What's the GE Credit for contemporary times?
That's interesting. I didn't consider that it was AI at any point while reading it, and I don't use it very much. Going back I see what people are saying but I think it's more cohesive and compelling than what AI would write.
I agree that it's more of a "key takeaways" than a critical review but I appreciated that the author didn't make it about themself.
Based on your attitude I know I’m safe to note something, something potentially all but irrelevant in the coming years: as soon as I saw the artwork I did a reverse image search and concluded it was likely generated.
I am unable to articulate exactly why, but it seemed to take away from the piece. Weird huh? (non sarcastic)
Disagree, the article's lead image is actually better. The Getty image is way too cluttered, and just artistically uninspired in general. If the author got his hero image by feeding the Getty image to AI and asking for a cleaned-up, focused version, then that's doing it right in my book, ethical considerations aside.
There really should be a way to credit the original source image without being compelled to actually use it. The image in the article isn't a "rip off," but it is a derivative work made without permission, and the law doesn't currently make a distinction AFAIK.
Felt like a summary - not sure I even considered AI even if it didn’t read like a critical review. I do really want to read the book. Jack Welch is a case study in hubris. And I worked for a startup that had a relationship with Immelt. We kept trying to use breakfasts and dinners with him as a marketing ploy…
More like 6th graders. Most modern news targets a 6-7 grade level, social media 4-6th.
Government publications target 6-8th grade.
Look for New York Times articles published in the 1960s or 70s and compare them to today… it’s pretty jarring. They targeted a 12th grade reading levels at that time.
Ignoring for the moment the fact that this particular article is a book summary, a task LLMs excel at, it's interesting that the (warranted) comparison to LLM outputs casts doubt on the credibility of the writing, and in some ways maybe even caps its implied utility.
Just like how human beings choose different ways of presenting themselves to the world (e.g. masculine/feminine, gay/straight, goth/punk/preppy) as a form of social signaling, today's LLMs emit a certain "I'm AI" signal that humans pick up on, and human writers will likely have to continue evolving the counter-position(s) to that signal.
If the results of relatively simple, unsophisticated prompts get better at passing for human-written articles/blog posts/forum comments/etc, that'll increase the fraction of human writing that falls into this uncanny valley, and exacerbate the need for stronger counter-positioning over time.
It’s funny how this works. The writing style did not tickle my LLM detectors, but the structure certainly looks like common LLM formatting with the sections and key quotes at the end.
Sounds like an interesting book but the article says remarkably little.