>"This shows the downside of using AI to write up your project."

I just find phrases like this a bit obnoxious at times.

>You would not have had a problem with calling out a badly composed rambling article 5 years ago.

Then why not just say that? It's rambling bla bla bla. What's so hard about that? Why invent a reason for issues, as if rambling articles didn't get written 5 years ago.

Like No, being written by an LLM or not is not the reason the article has no benchmarks or interpretability results. Those things would be there regardless if the author was interested in that, so again, it just seems there's little point in making such assertions.