While his tone seems a bit adversarial, at least he is providing relevant information to the topic instead of a generic rant. I greatly prefer the former.
I haven't read much actual writing from the Mega crew...but I was impressed with its lack of ad hominem in its rebuttal. Sometimes, these technical debates, especially when played out in the media, can get quite snarky.
I also like the frankness and simplicity of their communication style.
No fancy buzzwords, to the point and speaks to things we all know are true but are typically not addressed or are wrapped up in spin. The first and last paragraphs are great examples.
The authenticity of it leaves me with a strong sense of trust and respect.
I like that it comes across as competent without sounding boastful. There's obviously pride in there, but balanced with honest commentary about parts that aren't perfect.
but this piece at least didn't really come across to me as preachy or anything. Just sort of describing how it happened. No idea if it's all accurate, but at least sounded reasonably honest and plausible.
That's a little too simple. The basic fact is they have consistent and helpful sources who put a nice little bow on an easy-to-write story that nobody will really object to.
Well I'm not gonna post the less PG advice it gave regarding best methods of suicide, poisoned ice cream recipes, etc. It's really weird seeing it just go at it without any scruples like some kind of terminator. But it's also refreshing to see it just give straight answers to more mundane story writing stuff where GPTs would condescendingly drag their feet and give a billion warnings just in case somebody actually does it for real and ends up suing OpenAI or something.
reply