Because the power returned to the antenna scales as the -4th power of the distance to the target, and detection depends on that power being greater than some threshold. If the fourth power (rather than the square) is surprising, think of the reflection as re-transmitting the power that arrived at the target. The incident power on the target goes as RCS/r^2, and the power that makes it back to the original antenna gets another factor of 1/r^2, so the return scales as RCS/r^4.
There's still a strong angular dependence in the reflection amplitude; 1/r^2 fall-off does not imply isotropic distribution.
Also, I feel it's not who the generator is that should concern you--it's the quality of the text.
I would much rather read something that is clear, concise, and consistent regardless of the source.
You didn't even read your own slop. Why should anybody else?
As opposed to this, vibe coded slop which neither explains the stuff that's already there, nor is pedagogical. Why use AI for this?
Ask any teacher who’s designed a PowerPoint lecture, or any marketer who just needed some anodyne ad copy and stock photography. They were procuring licenses at $$$ cost, and this licensing takes a lot of effort and a lot of legal counsel to get it right.
It is far more expedient to simple AI-generate the stuff you need, guaranteed royalty-free, unencumbered.
Ordinary computer users can just get a nice wallpaper, or icons we like, without signing up to a sleazy “Free Clipart” site.
This new normal is not born from a hatred of the human element, but I would say it’s because of the naked greed and unforgiving legal pitfalls of intellectual property today.
Then when I was doing teaching (broad career, lol) I didn't find it too difficult to product my own content. Additionally I was also working in advertising for ages, and often created my own art. If I didn't want to create my own things, then I wouldn't be in a career where I was creating my own things.
I just don't know man. I was a creative once. I changed course, but I still feel so torn that I'm watching the entire creative process be taken over by non-creatives and then being argued out of the room that it's better.
(Edit, I would like to add that I'm no AI luddite, I just don't like the way it's being utilised)
If I remember from my numerical analysis days, it was the ease of numerical computing that necessitated the facets. Think 3D graphics from the 90s. All polygons.
Anyway, I'd imagine the part that is an integral over the surface becomes a finite sum, the post doesn't say but it seems like a reasonable guess.
Then, the question becomes why is the B-2 bomber (and latest stealth fighter jets) not angular like F 117.
Scientific computing has come a long way since the days of F-117. We do not need flat surfaces to scatter the beams away. Finding optimal curved surfaces that scatter the beams away is just a harder math problem.
Being detected too late might as well be the same as not being detected at all in most practical scenarios.
few things I'd like to clarify: - yes, I do use claude quite a bit. I don't have much background in frontend design or do it for work (which is mostly low level perception and controls, ironically something I'm seldom able to use AI for), so it makes tasks for me way more accessible. I try, as much as possible, to use LLM content to increase the creativity of a human behind it as much as possible (all the drawings on the site are drawn by visitors, for example, and I actually storyboarded the site's design by hand before implementing it).
- for writing, it is for better or worse mostly me, but I'm starting to see the parts that unravel. I've always been known to be rather verbose, and I tried to use LLMs to suggest strategies to make my drafts more palatable to a reader. I feel in retrospect that these attempts may have added a synthetic tinge. Mostly everything I write about is something I first make code for and investigate in my own time, without any expectation of explaining; there is a lot of real effort that's disproportionately put there over packaging.
This article was genuinely my first time making something educational of the sort, and I had my physics major friends checking in and auditing, and was gleefully showing progress wherever I could. I used manim for the first time to make those very shitty looking animations as well. I did not want to nor claim to look like an expert on this. I just wanted to show an exploration I did in my free time earlier, to maybe spark a little bit of interest in one of my random discord peers regarding the subject matter. I can say that for the close group of people around me in real life who this article was originally intended for, that I was successful. tl;dr I'm now somewhat embarassed that I've immortalized and publicized my lackluster first attempt at making educational content