> I'd love to see data, but my intuition is that the average developer has access to dramatically better security reviews and far lower cost than ever.

Where? If I ask Claude to do a “security review” of my software, it gets blocked as a possible hacking attempt.

> I loathe LLM prose, no matter who posts it

I don't know if it's even possible anymore to write a detailed, technical article without a swarm of people showing this reaction.

Detailed, technical articles appreciated. LLM prose, not.

Yeah that's “edit” in English.

I had the same thought. This is honestly plagiarism.

It would have been nice if a replacement had been suggested.

Replacement is defined in the github repo, in composer you can only define an replacement package, but there is no real replacement, just alternative ways.

Read the linked entry.

You make it sound like you think “modified” means “degraded” and the original is always superior just for being the original.

I don't think most Japanese speakers would characterize their language as having “four writing systems”. They would say three and not include Romaji in the count. This is not to say they don't use Romaji, but it's not considered part of the official orthography. There are no words or sentences that can't officially be written without Romaji.

The same is true with English and emoji. We do use emoji to augment the language, but that doesn't tempt us to consider emoji part of our alphabet. The analogy is weak of course, because English doesn't have an equivalent official transcription into another writing system. But you get the point. If the roles were reversed and global culture and the Internet were all in Japanese first and foremost, and most languages based their writing on kana and/or kanji so much so that you can't avoid it when traveling, then English would get an official transcription into that.

> Is it because people think the topic is interesting but don't actually care about the content?

I'm having difficulty seeing where you draw the line between “topic” and “content”. I found the article interesting as it taught me a few things that I didn't already know. I did notice the one egregious AIism that you pointed out, but the rest was readable and informative. (Although I stopped at the point where it started talking about their software Fink.)

For me, the lightbulb cartel comes to mind in which leading manufacturers at the time agreed to limit the longevity of incandescent lightbulbs. (This is often cited as an egregious case of planned obsolescence, but Technology Connections has a great video on this that explains there's more to it and it potentially reduced overall load on the electric grid.)

Brains output muscle movements.

The only evolutionary purpose of brains is to make decisions on what muscles to move when and how.

Language is one byproduct of that. Another byproduct that is not unique to humans is memory.