This is a Gemini deep research response that someone ran through some kind of shortening prompt. They even kept all the footnotes.
It used to be that startups would run blogs that did technical analysis, maybe talked a little market research, advanced the strategy of the business.
The good ones showed you how the leaders of the business thought, built trust and generated leads.
Now we have whatever this bullshit is. No evidence of human thought or experience, it's not even apparent what the objective of the piece is.
The prose is unbearably bad. Your brain just sort of slips on it. There's basically zero through line in this thing. a section ends, the next one begins, and it's not even clear what's under discussion.
One section starts "The clearest public descriptions landed between mid-2025 and early 2026." Descriptions of what? No clarity on this. Probably because it got "tersed" out.
At this point I feel like blogs are like lawn ornaments for startups. Even now, the sheer contempt for other people's time and attention is still a mild shock to me.
I actually assure you that no deep research from any of the provider was used to create the article itself, but I used a custom-built research pipeline for creating a dossier on promt injections as a starting point.
The article was intended as an overview of prompt injections with my prediction what will happen next in this space, which is a soft justification why the tools like OpenGuard are needed. I've spent multiple days iterating on the prose without an ill intent, mostly aiming to make it dense and informative to avoid wasting people's time, which I see backfired here.
I'm deeply sorry that it left such a bad taste despite my best effort, there's still a lot to learn for me.
Comments
The headline is telling. Book judged by cover.
This is a Gemini deep research response that someone ran through some kind of shortening prompt. They even kept all the footnotes.
It used to be that startups would run blogs that did technical analysis, maybe talked a little market research, advanced the strategy of the business.
The good ones showed you how the leaders of the business thought, built trust and generated leads.
Now we have whatever this bullshit is. No evidence of human thought or experience, it's not even apparent what the objective of the piece is.
The prose is unbearably bad. Your brain just sort of slips on it. There's basically zero through line in this thing. a section ends, the next one begins, and it's not even clear what's under discussion.
One section starts "The clearest public descriptions landed between mid-2025 and early 2026." Descriptions of what? No clarity on this. Probably because it got "tersed" out.
At this point I feel like blogs are like lawn ornaments for startups. Even now, the sheer contempt for other people's time and attention is still a mild shock to me.
Thank you for the feedback!
I actually assure you that no deep research from any of the provider was used to create the article itself, but I used a custom-built research pipeline for creating a dossier on promt injections as a starting point.
The article was intended as an overview of prompt injections with my prediction what will happen next in this space, which is a soft justification why the tools like OpenGuard are needed. I've spent multiple days iterating on the prose without an ill intent, mostly aiming to make it dense and informative to avoid wasting people's time, which I see backfired here.
I'm deeply sorry that it left such a bad taste despite my best effort, there's still a lot to learn for me.