Forgot to mention, Claude appears to be a lot more rate-limited that OpenAI. Hit quite a few concurrency rate limits, but as long as you have auto-retry, it is non-issue.
Just use a dedicated tool. It is not that hard. If you want higher level abstraction, you have a whole spectrum of next gen queues, like Temporal, Trigger.dev, Inngest, Defer, etc.
For anyone who is looking for UI library that's compatible with Panda, I highly recommend https://park-ui.com/ By far the most polished and actively developed. I am building a second project using it.
I am a bit advocate of remote work, but I actually think for _small teams_ offices make sense. I would thoroughly enjoy working in 4-8 people small office. It is when you get into high double digits and beyond when it becomes unbearable drain.
The annoying thing about this is that it will ruin this feature for everyone else. I, and many others, use this for requesting to index time sensitive content.
Just for fun, I just tested a few recently generated articles with https://huggingface.co/spaces/tomg-group-umd/Binoculars (someone linked it in this tread) and it ranked them as "Human-Generated" (which I assume means human written). And... I am not even trying to evade AI detection in my generated content. I was wholeheartedly expecting to fail. Meanwhile, Originality detects AI generated content with 85% confidence, which is ... fair enough.
To clarify, the style experiment I've referenced earlier was just that – an experiment. I did not implement those methods into my software. Instead, I focused on how to eliminate things like 'talking with authority without evidence', 'contradictions', 'talking in extremely abstract concepts', 'conclusions without insights', etc.
If you need a dataset to benchmark against, download any articles from pre 2017. There are a few ready-made datasets floating around the Internet.
I use https://originality.ai/ as the benchmark. I've tested all commercially available services, and Originality (at the time; its been a few months) provided the lowest false-positive rate. As a testing sample, I've built a database of articles written by various text generators and compare them against articles that I scrapped from web from before 2017 (basically any text before LLMs saw daylight).
I am sure that these algorithms have evolved, but given my past experiments, I sincerely doubt that we are at a point that (a) cannot be easily bypassed if you are targeting them, (b) do not create a lot of false-positives.
As stated in another comment, I personally "gave up" on trying to bypass AI detection [it often negatively impacts output quality], at least for my use case, and focus on creating highest-possible value content.
I know that services like Surfer SEO are continuing to actively invest in bypassing all detectors. But... as a human, I do not enjoy their content and that what matters the most.
I will also add that, at least for now, if you are doing it for SEO, it _really_ doesn't matter. I was planning to make a case study benchmarking my algo against a bunch of other content generators. I was hoping for there to be statistically significant difference, but there was none. So, the thing that matters in the long-run is if the end-users find your content valuable, because that's how ultimately Google will decide whether to send more traffic to your content, rather than trying to detect if it was "AI generated".
I can talk a lot about this, since this is the space I've spent a lot in experimenting. All I will say is that all these detectors (a) create a ton of false-positives, and (b) are incredibly easy to bypass if you know what you are doing.
As an example, one method that I found that works extremely well is to simply rewrite the article section by section with instructions that require to mimic the writing style of an arbitrary block of human written text.
This works a lot better than (as an example) asking to write in a specific style. Like, if I just say something along the lines of "write in a casual style that conveys lightheartedness towards the topic" is not going to work as good as simply saying "rewrite mimicking the style in which the following text block is written X" (where X is an example of a block of human written text).
There are some silly things that will (a) trigger human written text to be detected as a AI and (b) that allow to avoid AI detection, e.g. using broad dictionary tends to trigger AI bots to detect the text as written by AI. So if you are using Grammarly to "improve your writing", then don't be surprised if it gets flagged. The inverse is true too. If you some statistical analyzes to replace less common expressions with more common expressions, AI-text is less likely to be detected as AI.
If someone is interested, I can talk a lot more about hundreds of experiments I've done by now.
My indy journey has so far been met with mostly positive people, eager to help. Meanwhile, really starting to sound like you are on a personal vendetta. You do you.
HN posts have generated 0 paying clients for AIMD. If you think that I am spending my time posting on HN for the sole purpose of advertising AIMD, then you don't have a knack for advertising. HN is just not my target audience.
Meanwhile, the comments have been a valuable source of feedback that highlighted several flaws in the product.