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

AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

rickmanelius.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 729 posts

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#51

Post by ModernMech »

jastanton wrote: post #39
ademup wrote: post #22

I'll probably be downvoted to the bottom of the ocean, but I feel this needs to be said: - Why does it matter who or what wrote a thing? And how would you know if the /content/ is worthwhile, unless you read it... - The ability to "detect AI" is imperfect at best. 90% AI written? 5%? How would you know, unless you read it.... - If you didn't read it, then why brag about it with an "AI;DR"? - If you are wrong, and you…

Because my time is valuable and if the person who sent me something didn't care enough to write it, then I don't care enough to read it. Bragging about it is weird, but I will use it like I use 'RTFM'. And detectability - My AI-DAR (radar), is fairly fined tuned but not perfect, so if I make a mistake, oh well, the point is I'm protecting my time.

So how much time do you deem a minimum amount for someone to spend on some unit of work before you're willing to read it? And what technologies are allowed -- are word processors allowed or does it have to be done with a writing instrument like a pencil? What about spell check? Do you care if they had done their research with a Wikipedia or do you prefer card catalog for the really important work?

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#52

Post by AnimalMuppet »

eddieroger wrote: post #14

>However, I have a new policy. >If you’re not bothered enough to review and edit it... >...then I’m not going to bother reading it. Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but we've had copywriters and editors for generations now. Not reading something because AI did the post-writing work feels kinda weak. Skip stuff started from AI, fine, but this is just because it's AI, not because the author didn't do the task. And I…

The problem with copywriters is that they wrote "copy" - which turns out to be writing that I don't want to read. And the problem with AI is that much of what it trained on is copy, so it trained to write stuff that I don't want to read.

So in the end, I don't care if a human wrote it or an AI, I don't want to read it either way.

What's wrong with copyrighters? They write like corporations, not like humans (see the Cluetrain Manifesto for more on this). They sound like nobody - literally inhuman. I don't want to read that. I want to hear a human voice. If I can't hear that in your writing, I don't need to read it.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#53

Post by fluidcruft »

gortok wrote: post #36

The part that astonishes me is that in the year of our common era two thousand twenty-six that it's not universally offensive and reviling to post an AI-generated response to another person. If I'm reading something on the internet, I'm either reading it to learn, or I'm reading it to be persuaded. If I wanted the LLM to teach me (thank you, no), I would ask an LLM. I'm reading your website/newsletter/email because I…

It's like when you type a search in Google and get a wall of SEO spam.

I do feel like there is some middle ground where AI helps, but there's this one guy who keeps emailing everyone with walls of dumbass text and does not integrate or understand the feedback he gets when we are telling him what he needs to do. He just runs it though the LLM and replies and then forgets half of it in the next email engagement which functions as /clear on his end apparently. Like... dude I have ChatGPT and Claude, too. Actually read your goddamn emails.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#54

Post by neilv »

> Look, I get it. It’s Q3 2026, and we should expect that everyone is utilizing AI at SOME point in their process (sourcing ideas, creating outlines, refining prose, etc.).

Sounds like this isn't everyone, but rather, it's people who have nothing to say, and -- even after they've "sourced ideas" -- they don't know how to reason about it, nor how to communicate it.

This isn't everyone. This is people engaged in generating noise, for the sake of noise.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#56

Post by LPisGood »

My coworkers continue to dump hundreds of lines of AI documentation in every PR and every other line of code has between one and ten lines of AI generated comments, talking about the real unlock and how things are byte for byte identical on the load bearing path or how the acceptance ladder is misleading.

Features are coming out and metrics are improving, but we’re basically in a post readability code base, with the occasional performative comment about a variable name.

I don’t really know how to address this situation or if it needs addressed. I certainly don’t read the long-winded AI comments or the AI documentation, but perhaps it’s useful for the AI on its next pass.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#57

Post by layman51 »

ademup wrote: post #22

I'll probably be downvoted to the bottom of the ocean, but I feel this needs to be said: - Why does it matter who or what wrote a thing? And how would you know if the /content/ is worthwhile, unless you read it... - The ability to "detect AI" is imperfect at best. 90% AI written? 5%? How would you know, unless you read it.... - If you didn't read it, then why brag about it with an "AI;DR"? - If you are wrong, and you…

In one case, I could tell because the tone of the piece sounded exactly like the kind of stuff I would read after prompting an LLM and I had never heard of the author before, but I knew that they were like an intern or a new college grad and for some reason their piece was trying to persuade employees in a certain field about how they had to use AI itself. It just rubbed me the wrong way because if they did use AI, then they didn't even bother to rewrite the repetitive instances of "it's not X; it's y", and also "This isn't X".

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#58

Post by paulpauper »

cortesoft wrote: post #48

I really like the point I read somewhere the other day; instead of sending me the AI output, just send me the prompt you used to generate it. That is the only part that contains only the information you are trying to convey. The rest is just guesses flowery language added, and it confuses the actual message being sent.

Many people use many prompts and revisions or prompts or combinations or human and AI writing. Its not a simple as just making a single prompt and copying the output as the blog post.

Re: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read)

#59

Post by jr3592 »

The irony here is that his very own post reads (to me) as AI slop. Take this line:

> I’ve been thinking about it ever since. Why? Because there is growing grumbling among everyone about AI writing. And it’s not just others; it’s me!

Classic AI "its not just, its..."

Post reply on HN