Sure, the blog post is AI generated (I'm not a native English speaker, our bunch is often shy about our English language skills), yet the research I've done there is manual.
I found it interesting that (contrary to the popular opinion) there wasn't some magic, e.g. a novel model, happening with Claude Design, especially magic enough that Figma wouldn't be able to replicate if they felt like it.
Also, apparently human (not artificial) neurons were behind that huge prompt, very well aware of the limitations of the model, cheating here and there to make Design's outputs more impressive, making it "create a (design) plan" beforehand, i.e. all the stuff that we the common laymen could do ourselves with the same tools.
> Also, you certainly got some brass, linking an entirely AI generated article in a forum where extreme distaste is registered for entirely AI generated posts.
> How is your comment not downvoted to oblivion?
I'm sure there's a polite way to say things.
I heavily dislike LLM content, but if you read the content, it's actually got information of value.
That was the polite way of saying things. The phrase "if you couldn't be bothered to write it why would anyone bother to read it" was a saying from usenet times.
The truth is it took the author less time to "write" that piece than you to read it. It's a blog. There's no deadline, and yet they couldn't take the time to actually type out their own thoughts.
> I heavily dislike LLM content, but if you read the content, it's actually got information of value.
If it was so valuable the author would have written it themselves.
