With GPT-5.6 I get reasonable results with "use natural, plain English". I tried "use ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English" but I've found "natural plain English" to work better. Still not on the level I would write, but better.

In the mean time, I hear that Claude resists changing its writing style. A PO used Claude to write release notes and it was full of Claudeisms and tried changing the text into a TED talk. Then he prompted Claude to rewrite in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English, and Claude barely changed its writing. Then he switched to GPT-5.6 Terra, and GPT revised everything and made the text much better.

Also, what do we call it when people don't look beyond the writing style, such as at the code, or at the rigorousness of the tests, or at other substances beyond writing style? Slop assessment?

I'm sorry, but I agree with the author: if a certain writing style makes you associate the work with low-quality, then that's your problem. The author shouldn't have to rewrite the readme just to avoid triggering your automatic unfounded associations. If you look at the substance of the work, including the test cases, then this is clearly not easy work that can be vibe coded in a single pass.

It's just like emdash. Everybody digs on how it's a signifier of LLM text, but I've used emdash for years because it's gramatically correct. I shouldn't have to stop using emdash just to avoid kneejerk reactions.

Seems you missed out on 10-15 years of development. Regulation strictness these days rival western.

Well, yes? Why does it have to be either-or?

> But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.

Automatically assuming nefarious intentions behind all moves is also rarely a relevant lens.

And as I said, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it, but I define "generosity" in the sense of mutual benefit. Being nice to your neighbors and helping them, benefits you due to generated goodwill. I'm explicitly not defining generosity in the sense of selfless philanthropy where you get nothing back. The idea that doing good things for others eventually results in good things coming your way, and thus that one should do good things for others even it's selfishly motivated (and also that there's nothing wrong with this), is not a crazy idea.

In a lot of cultures (Chinese included), gifts are not simply gifts. There is the social expectation that the gift is reciprocated. Western cynicists may call this "manipulation" or "influence". The Chinese see this as the start of a relationship of a cycle of mutual gift giving.

No matter what you believe is their "true" intentions, offering 5000 training and tech transfer positions to the global south is a very concrete and unambiguous move. As are forgiving African loans and unilaterally offering zero trade tariffs.

They literally announced their motivations and world few a few weeks ago at the Shanghai AI conference. They want to ally with the global south. They see AI like the industrial revolution: the global south was left behind for a long time and, as a result has been exploited and has struggled to develop for a long time. They see open AI as a way to level the playing field to prevent such "new historical injustices" (in the sense of the Century of Humiliation and the Opium Wars). Concrete policies to back this rhetoric include technology transfer and training programs for the global south. They frame this latter not as philantropy but as generosity, in the sense that it generates goodwill and what goes around comes around. They believe that helping the global south and cultivating relationships will eventually help China.

Think about it. Your local businesses are not charities either. That doesn't make them bad, nor does it mean you derive no benefit. It still benefits you to cultivate good relationships with them.

The real policy mechanisms around open AI models are also incentives. Various cities have programs to pay companies for releasing open models. They subsidize compute through vouchers. They reward universities and students for open source collaboration.

This isn't some black box. The policies are written down, anybody can read their AI+ policy papers.

Alibaba went back to releasing open models way before the Xi speech from a few weeks ago. The cause is pressure from researchers, who believe in openness, as well as the competition who keeps releasing open models. This is Chinese "involution" at work. And the subsidies also help, of course.

This is undefined behavior!

const int* magic_intp = (const int*)bytes;

Heck even something trivial like this is UB:

bool bar(char ch) { return isxdigit(ch); }

The only safe thing to do is memcpy, but that's super useless. As soon as you try to interpret or manipulate the byte-level data in any way, there are UB traps everywhere you go.

Any code that ventures anywhere near that territory is 99% Undefined Behavior. It's almost impossible to write proper C/C++ code that isn't UB while touching byte-level representations.