fp.

Hypothesis C: failure of human memory. A human read Stephenson's book(s) 20 years ago, remembers that the endings were a bit unsatisfying. The same human also read some other book many years ago, which ends mid-sentence. In that person's mind, the two are conflated.

boesboes•34m ago

Hypothesis A is much more likely if you ask me

shortrounddev2•32m ago

It's A16Z, they definitely had an LLM recommend a set of books that nobody there has actually ever read. Except maybe Snowcrash

readams•33m ago

In these modern times of ours, the word literally has taken on a new meaning, which is "not literally but with emphasis." This seems like the most likely explanation.

EdwardCoffin•18m ago

Even if that's the intended meaning of literally, it is still a reckless exaggeration. I'm pretty sure that Stephenson's endings are no more abrupt than some of Shakespeare's (check out Hamlet and Macbeth) or some of Frank Herbert's (see Dune and Children of Dune), and I never hear anyone go out of their way to describe either of them as being unable to write endings.

MangoToupe•10m ago

Hard to believe this when it's such a cut and dry claim about text. What does exaggeration even imply in that context?

kylecazar•32m ago

It would have been really great to end the blog post mid-sentence.

chucksmash•5m ago

Stephenson? Ah yes, the deservedly obscure dadaist prose stylist who thought it was cool to stop his books mid-sentence.

3rodents•3m ago

“A hundred years from now, thanks to the workings of the Inhuman Centipede, I’m known as a deservedly obscure dadaist prose stylist who thought it was cool to stop his books mid-sentence.”

is “Inhuman Centipede” to describe the slop-eating-its-own-tale future we all dread an established term, or an invention of the author? I hope it becomes the term we all use, like slop and clanker.

For those of us writing original words that are consumed by LLMs without our consent, at least we get to be the front of the inhuman centipede.