> IMO the post-mortem is more a satirical response to the HN criticism
They have edited it again to be slightly more emotional. It's why their "On Taste" closure doesn't actually pertain to Taste anymore. Of course, they wouldn't notice the mismatch - they didn't write it in the first place.
They aren't being satirical. They're pissed they got called them out. Were they not, they'd not bother with edits.
It's neither satirical, nor by an agent on the loose/in a loop. I read the comment section with good intentions, assuming good faith---and in their defense there is plenty---but the amount of misattribution is counterproductive. Nothing about the post-mortem section is "pissed off". I wrote it in complete serenity, like I am writing this comment to explain. There are three groups of commenters:
1. Skeptic, but engaging in good faith - thank you, much appreciated
2. Skeptic, not truly engaging with the post - that's fine, can't win 'em all
3. Completely disengaged with anything in writing. They're under the impression that I am criticizing their taste, and felt the need to "strike back" - what?
The post-mortem is a response to all three groups. I've explained the situation, apologized for what I agree I did wrong, and clarified my boundary. It's not worth pointing time and time again it was not LLM authored, and I do not have anything to add.
Fine for me, I didn't ask any justification from you, but the post-mortem does/did sound as LLM-speech, and presuming it human I also presumed some kind of humor in it (I was probably projecting).
They have edited it again to be slightly more emotional. It's why their "On Taste" closure doesn't actually pertain to Taste anymore. Of course, they wouldn't notice the mismatch - they didn't write it in the first place.
They aren't being satirical. They're pissed they got called them out. Were they not, they'd not bother with edits.