Who cares? Even if it’s LLM generated (which is not 100% sure, I’m pretty sure I could have written this description with bold keywords myself), the text is dense and easy to read. Rejecting LLM output without even thinking about the content doesn’t make any sense.

You are replying to a comment which stated:

> the genai content on the website is just so distracting and such a bummer. It sticks out like sore thumb.

The comment is fair and accurate. The vacuous marketing speak is tedious, unpleasant and risks undermining the technology it makes a flailing attempt to describe.

Your non-native English speaker excuse is neither fair nor accurate since an AI translation of a human-written Mandarin language text does not introduce the style of writing being criticised.

Not every open source project requires a grandiose marketing site littered with manipulative, cloying language. Let the project speak for itself.

|The comment is fair and accurate. The vacuous marketing speak is tedious, unpleasant and risks undermining the technology it makes a flailing attempt to describe.

Sure, in your fallible opinion, just like everyone else’s. I don’t care what language the writer of the software speaks, and I don’t care whether ai wrote the descriptions. I got the point quickly and clearly. Are you serious? Bold words are scary, and we should put down the author of what would appear to be a great piece of open software? Wow, I thought App Store review sucked.

> The comment is fair and accurate. The vacuous marketing speak is tedious, unpleasant

I don’t agree at all. The text and illustrations are straight to the point. I just took the time to read the page fully and honestly every word is useful to me. I’m interested in this tool because Logi Options+ sucks, and it clears out every question I have for a replacement. I know what features it offers, what devices it’s compatible with, what it looks like, how to install it, even how it uses the network (update checker disabled by default is a nice touch)

I fail to see how this isn’t the perfect website for an open source productivity tool

Seems like we should be able to disagree, as you're doing here, without all the "that's harsh" (it wasn't) and "who cares?" (people, including you) comments.

> Seems like we should be able to disagree, as you're doing here, without all the "that's harsh" (it wasn't)

I fail to see how me saying "that's harsh" makes us not able to disagree?

I didn't say that at all.

I care. If the site is LLM generated, I'd wonder which parts of the code is LLM generated, as well.

Writing/generating something with Rust doesn't make it devoid of bugs or problems.

Statistically, if it was LLM generated, is it actually more bug dense than human generated code was before this stuff all came out?

This weird take of “an LLM made it, it must be slop and buggy” ignores the reality of how almost all software written by humans was also quite shit before LLM’s came along

Considering the LLM doesn’t pull the code it generates from thin air, I’d argue that it has at least the same bug density with human written code.

However, also considering that LLMs can’t judge the code they have emitted, humans have the advantage here.

Lastly, why we downplay the bugs in the code emitted by AI? Why the lower standards?

- AI generated patch allows access (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49331423)

- Bug in AI scribe creates big problems (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49294441)

As an addenda, human written code is much more maintainable with respect to AI emitted blobs. At least a band of humans can forge that code to a much better shape.

I care. I see pills etc.. and clearly author hasn't put effort properly. Accessibility granted button, connected button clearly shows that.

I keep telling people use AI, but use your head more.

If someone didn't care enough to write it, why should anyone else care enough to read it?

I've seen free tier Claude introduce LLM writing tells even when it's just prompted for translation. Gotta be careful with that.

It doesn't matter. The site is fine.

Only significant change I would make is have the top navbar not be transparent with body content underlaid beneath it, which makes things hard to read when the page is scrolled. And move some of the links at the very bottom of page like 'github' into the top navbar.

Everything is fine for a standard low enough. This is the crux of the issue with LLM work, it is poor quality and shifts the burden of mental work to the consumer rather than the producer, while the producer attempts to extract credit for the work.