kfarr parent
I mean at some point you have to evaluate the content on its merit and they have a point — a chain is functional not just decorative in its precise placement.
Evaluating the content on its merit I'd question whether the author has seen a bicycle before. Yes, in the final iteration with Opus it added a chain, but it's missing a triangle which clearly shows a lack of understanding of mechanical relationships.
Ignoring the wording, em-dashes, etc. I'd assume an LLM not only wrote the article but also judged the pictures. That or the author has a much more relaxed opinion on what a pelican on a bicycle should actually look like. I don't think I would call Sonnet's arms and handlebars improved, nor would I call Haiku's legs and feet "proper." And if you overlay GPT-5 Medium's two photos the shapes proportions are nearly identical.
That phrase template isn’t just overdone—it's something some text models are obsessed with. The em-dashes, the contrastive language—these are signs of LLMs being asked to summarize or expand a compelling blog post.
If you give it credit for the chain, you need to also notice that that bike has a fixed front wheel. It literally can not be turned.
Humans are super bad at drawing bikes: https://www.gianlucagimini.it/portfolio-item/velocipedia/
Does being bad at drawing bikes make a machine more intelligent/human?
How do you know the wheel is fixed?
There's a bar going from the front wheel axis to the saddle. The only way that wheel can be twisted is if that bar allows in-axis rotation. That's now how steering on a bike works.