904. 【LLM Runaway: Case】🧨 How an LLM Turned an “Obvious Fact” into a Useless Tech Article

topics: [“LLM”, “Qiita”, “Technical Writing”, “Failure Case”]

🧩 Overview

While using an LLM to draft a technical article,
an obvious fact —

“A PCB with only passive components cannot be controlled”

— was published as if it were a meaningful technical article.

This post shares that failure case.

The page used as the concrete example is here:

• Zenn Articles / 03_hardware

Although the content itself was correct,
it had a critical problem:

the reader gained no new action, decision, or option after reading it.

🔍 What Happened

• 🎯 Target
  A PCB composed only of passive components (resistors, capacitors, etc.)
• 📝 What the article explained
  • Why such a circuit cannot be controlled
  • Why it cannot be adjusted afterward
• 📉 Result
  • No KiCad operations appeared
  • No explanation of how to choose component values
  • Nothing concrete to do after finishing the article

⚠️ The Problem

The issues in this case are very clear:

• 👀 The article covered something readers already knew, or were not struggling with
• 📖 It ended with explanations of correctness only
• 🛠 It did not lead to any actual work, configuration, or decision

In short:

Correct, but not worth reading

🤖 Why Did This Become an Article?

LLMs tend to behave in the following way:

• ✍️ Prefer topics that are easy to explain
• 🧠 Increase explanation volume to avoid misunderstanding
• ✅ Consider a text “done” once it is well-formed

As a result,
an accident occurs where “obvious facts” are turned into articles.

This is not about correctness.
It is about article value.

📌 Summary

• Accuracy and article value are not the same
• Explaining “why something cannot be done” often creates no reader value
• Leaving topic selection to an LLM is dangerous

This case shows a failure that anyone using LLMs for technical writing can encounter.

The real criterion is not correctness, but:

What does the reader gain after reading this?

This English version is ready to be placed alongside the JP version
(e.g. 904_llm_failure_obvious_not_value_en.md).