That's discosed at the ending of the "article".

Wow. I thought the tone of TFA was infuriating. Now I know why (I quit in disgust before reaching the end where he clarifies this).

I guess AI-slop in writing will be the norm now.

(I wonder if Claude repeatedly quoting itself saying "you're absolutely right!" was edited in by the human author, or yet another case of unintentional humor).

Nope, pure Claude there, during editing itself.

Thanks for replying. Now I feel I must apologize for my rudeness.

I think the experiment itself was valuable, you did find something interesting.

I just cannot help it, I hate reading AI slop, and I'm depressed that this seems to be the future of internet writing.

No reason, all fine. Honestly, it is very hard to find time to write anything down and imagine 15k words deep analysis of the process like this. And LLMs are ideal log keepers. I also did bunch of similar experiments like doing a research paper from data to code and writing. We can only expect things to get better from here.

They admitted it was Claude at the end.

That should be moved toward the top, will do it manually. This was 98% loop, albeit very messy one. More an exploration of the process itself. The biggest value is the meta learning. Ideally we should save traces of prompts and process itself as a verifiable or observable artifact, instead of code itself. At the end of the day, outcome over code.