I feel very differently about the article. What I took away from it was the authors long-held critique of how high school literature and writing is taught and evaluated. Or how teaching in general has become increasingly outcome focused rather than process driven. ChatGPT is used to illustrate this but I feel like the article could have been written using another example like plagiarism or paying someone to write for you or any current LLM.

This document is not a critique on the state of LLMs.

It includes some very prominent examples of 2022 ChatGPT output.

I am not saying that the rest of the document does not include valuable content, just providing a warning that some of it uses 2+ year old examples.

> I feel most of this document [...] is more of historic interest than a useful critique of the state of LLMs in 2025.

I think you completely misunderstood the article. You should try to look at it from the eyes of an educator rather than a programmer.