Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

cut-the-crab.streamlit.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 207 posts

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#111

Post by larodi »

keiferski wrote: post #60

I bookmarked this comment a few months ago because I thought it was hilarious and increasingly accurate: It's approaching a very strange situation where people make overly wordy and bloated AI generated content and other people try to use AI to compress it back into useful pellets vaguely corresponding to the actual prompts used to generate the initial content. Which were the only bits anybody cared about in the firs…

W.Gibson and N.Stephenson have proven right for so many things, like we live in their books. I wouldn't be surprised if they got this one right also, and it sounds plausible.

Buuut, then, still, my significant other loves watching Friends, which was released she was born, and is not rewinding. So it depends.

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#112

Post by majormajor »

keiferski wrote: post #60

I bookmarked this comment a few months ago because I thought it was hilarious and increasingly accurate: It's approaching a very strange situation where people make overly wordy and bloated AI generated content and other people try to use AI to compress it back into useful pellets vaguely corresponding to the actual prompts used to generate the initial content. Which were the only bits anybody cared about in the firs…

For things like reviews I usually get a lot more value from a quick manual scan than an AI overview of any given review. Summaries of many reviews could be useful but if there are, e.g., thousands of reviews, I find myself skeptical of how truly "thorough" or well-executed that AI summary is anyway.

For "how do I write a bash script that will do X" the AI summary currently is way better than scanning a handful of StackOverflow tabs, already.

It will be interesting to see how "fresh" things like that stay in the world of newer or evolving programming languages. This is one of the areas where I already see the most issues (methods that no longer exist, etc).

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#114

Post by ip26 »

abraxas wrote: post #66
chamomeal wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The irony of AI removing AI content We love novel ways of wasting fossil fuels!! Nothing directed at OP here, I actually love this idea and I’ll totally use this for recipes

Just like the crypto the AI craze maybe be another instantiation of Bostrom's paperclip maximiser running on a hybrid human-machine topology.

I see it more like, there are a lot of relationships balanced by conflict, such as Adsense advertiser and target audience. The advertiser wants you to buy product, the target audience wants to get free content. Both sides will exploit every tool at their disposal (Adsense metrics, adblockers) to get an upper hand in the relationship. It just so happens that this time, AI can play both sides.

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#115

Post by ip26 »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #30
muc-martin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's true - actually i meant distilling the key points from articles and removing AI generated SEO fillers among other things

> removing AI generated SEO fillers We had SEO filler rubbish before we had AI. Is it actually looking for AI at all or was this just included as the current buzzword.

Wait, are you suggesting they SEO'd the article on how to remove SEO filler? I'm sure that can't be true.

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#116

Post by lmm »

queuebert wrote: post #39
stego-tech wrote: post #21

Feels like it “RSS-ified” a given website, which is a good vibe . Something like this baked into RSS-Bridge or some other feed curation platform could be a great way to ingest websites that lack RSS feeds themselves, especially if the codebase can run locally.

Beyond that, maybe we should bring back Gopher. Pictures online really don't seem to be worth 1000 words these days.

Gopher never went away, it's still there if you want it.

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#117

Post by throwup238 »

majormajor wrote: post #112
keiferski wrote: post #60

I bookmarked this comment a few months ago because I thought it was hilarious and increasingly accurate: It's approaching a very strange situation where people make overly wordy and bloated AI generated content and other people try to use AI to compress it back into useful pellets vaguely corresponding to the actual prompts used to generate the initial content. Which were the only bits anybody cared about in the firs…

For things like reviews I usually get a lot more value from a quick manual scan than an AI overview of any given review. Summaries of many reviews could be useful but if there are, e.g., thousands of reviews, I find myself skeptical of how truly "thorough" or well-executed that AI summary is anyway. For "how do I write a bash script that will do X" the AI summary currently is way better than scanning a handful of Sta…

I think we’re still missing a breakthrough in synthetic data generation for code in order to LLMs to come into their own. Something can ingest the documentation of all the different ecosystems and generate fine tuning to improve the accuracy of recall.

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#118

Post by TeMPOraL »

wcfrobert wrote: post #75
keiferski wrote: post #60

I bookmarked this comment a few months ago because I thought it was hilarious and increasingly accurate: It's approaching a very strange situation where people make overly wordy and bloated AI generated content and other people try to use AI to compress it back into useful pellets vaguely corresponding to the actual prompts used to generate the initial content. Which were the only bits anybody cared about in the firs…

What that comment is describing is already here. A colleague sent an email that was obviously AI-generated (bloated, repetitive, low signal-to-noise ratio). I guess he's quite new to the team and it's a sign of formality, but I really don't mind if you send me just the bullet-point notes... Why are we going through this encoding-decoding process? I think succinctness and low-noise writing will be treasured in the age…

> Why are we going through this encoding-decoding process? I think succinctness and low-noise writing will be treasured in the age of AI.

I hope so, because I hope this will lead to making it OK to skip the manual encoding process. After all, AI isn't doing anything new here - it's automating the customary need for communication to be in wordy prose paying right respects to right people. Maybe people will finally see that this - not AI, but the wordy prose part - is the bullshit that helps neither the sender nor the recipient, and it'll finally become culturally acceptable to send information-dense bullet point lists in e-mails instead.

Re: Show HN: Cut the crap – remove AI bullshit from websites

#119

Post by mtnGoat »

keiferski wrote: post #71
px43 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this an advancement in communication though? People can put out a message in whatever language or style they prefer, the machine translators translate it into an overly verbose AI vomit, and readers condense it back down into the exact kind of personalized language they're wanting to consume.

Depends on your theory of communication, I guess. If it’s to get the most tailored message possible, then yeah it is an advancement. But if it’s about communicating authentic feelings/thoughts between two people, then it’s a big step backwards. This might not be super relevant for random website content, but if for example people start using generative AI to communicate with each other, I think it will feel very alie…

I got a thank you email the other day after a meeting that was clearly written by AI, it was a real turn off. English was the authors second language, but she does public speaking in English, so I know she has decent command. Regardless, id still rather get an authentic heart felt thank you in broken English then a fake one. It comes off as inauthentic.
Post reply on HN