171–180 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re judging my writing so shallowly, I don’t think I’m writing for you.
> If you’re judging my writing so shallowly, I don’t think I’m writing for you. No, you are writing for people who see LLM-signals and read on anyway. Not sure that that's a win for you.
[flagged]
I just skimmed the article, but I can already tell it's chock-full of LLMisms. In other words: ai;dr Edit: ok, I've checked your profile and now I see that this is your website that you're astroturfing every thread you reply to. Stop doing that.
>Why should I bother to read something someone else couldn't be bothered to write? This take is baffling to me when I see it repeated. It's like saying why should people use Windows if Bill Gates did not write every line of it himself. We won't be able to see into Bill's mind. Why should you read a book if they couldn't bother to write it properly and have an editor come in and fix things. The main purpose of a creat…
What is creative about generating an article from a stub? The kernel of the article around which the LLM constructs the content? I'm not trying to be an ass, just curious.
I really like Oxide's take on AI for prose: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 and how it breaks the "social contract" where usually it takes more effort to write than to read, and so you have a sense that it's worth it to read. So I get the frustration that "ai;dr" captures. On the other hand, I've also seen human writing incorrectly labeled AI. I wrote (using AI!) https://seeitwritten.com as a bit of an exp…
My biggest sorrow right now is the fact that my beloved emdash is a major signal for AI generated content. I've been using it for decades now but these days, I almost always pause for a second.
I really like Oxide's take on AI for prose: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 and how it breaks the "social contract" where usually it takes more effort to write than to read, and so you have a sense that it's worth it to read. So I get the frustration that "ai;dr" captures. On the other hand, I've also seen human writing incorrectly labeled AI. I wrote (using AI!) https://seeitwritten.com as a bit of an exp…
My biggest sorrow right now is the fact that my beloved emdash is a major signal for AI generated content. I've been using it for decades now but these days, I almost always pause for a second.
Wrote about this before [0] but my 2c: you shouldn't pause and you should keep using them because fuck these companies and their AI tools. We should not give them the power to dictate how we write.
I really like Oxide's take on AI for prose: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 and how it breaks the "social contract" where usually it takes more effort to write than to read, and so you have a sense that it's worth it to read. So I get the frustration that "ai;dr" captures. On the other hand, I've also seen human writing incorrectly labeled AI. I wrote (using AI!) https://seeitwritten.com as a bit of an exp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One problem is that it's exceedingly difficult to tell, as a reader, which scenario you have encountered.
This is the strongest argument against it, I think. Sometimes you can't easily tell from the output whether someone thought deeply and used AI to polish, or just prompted and published. That adds another layer of cognitive burden for parsing text which is frustrating. But AI-generated content is here to stay, and it's only going to get harder to distinguish the two over time. At some point we probably just have to ju…
I do note that recently, I wonder what was the point the author wanted to make more often only to then note that there are a lot of what seems to be the agreed on standard telltale signs of excessive AI usage.
Effectively there was a lot of spam before already hence in general I don't mind so much. It is interesting to see, though, that the “new spam” often gets some traction and interesting comments on HN which used to not be the case.
It also means that behind the spam layer there is possibly some interesting info the writer wanted to share and for that purpose, I imagine I'd prefer to read the unpolished/prompt input variant over the outcome. So far, I haven't seen any posts where both versions were shared to test whether this would indeed be any better, though.
> specially documentation How we can tell that this wasn't written by an LLM.
You can't. Like always we have to lean on evaluating based on quality. You can produce quality using an LLM, but it's much easier to produce slop, which is why there's so much of it now.
I really like Oxide's take on AI for prose: https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 and how it breaks the "social contract" where usually it takes more effort to write than to read, and so you have a sense that it's worth it to read. So I get the frustration that "ai;dr" captures. On the other hand, I've also seen human writing incorrectly labeled AI. I wrote (using AI!) https://seeitwritten.com as a bit of an exp…
My biggest sorrow right now is the fact that my beloved emdash is a major signal for AI generated content. I've been using it for decades now but these days, I almost always pause for a second.
You'll get over it.
It's pretty much over for the human-internet. Search was gamed, its usefulness has plummeted, so humans will increasingly ask their LLM of choice and that LLM will have been trained on the content of the internet. So when someone wants to know something about the topic that my website is focused on, chances are it will not be the material from the website they see directly, but a summary of what the LLM learned from…
I (perhaps naively) still believe that communities can successfully curate human writing. While there's lots of AI slop that gets posted on HN, for instance, the amount of thoughtful human content seems well above the base rate.