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

It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

blog.pabloecortez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 565 posts

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#221

Post by CjHuber »

goostavos wrote: post #178
mikepurvis wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never put up a copilot PR for colleague review without fully reviewing it myself first. But once that’s done, why not?

It destroys the value of code review and wastes the reviewers time. Code review is one of the places where experience is transferred. It is disheartening to leave thoughtful comments and have them met with "I duno. I just had [AI] do it." If all you do is 'review' the output of your prompting before cutting a CR, I'd prefer you just send the prompt.

I mean I totally get what you are saying about pull requests that are secretly AI generated.

But otherwise, writing code with LLM‘s is more than just the prompt. You have to feed it the right context, maybe discuss things with it first so it gets it and then you iterate with it.

So if someone has done the effort and verified the result like it‘s their own code, and if it actually works like they intended, what’s wrong with sending a PR?

I mean if you then find something to improve while doing the review, it’s still very useful to say so. If someone is using LLMs to code seriously and not just to vibecode a blackbox, this feedback is still as valuable as before, because at least for me, if I knew about the better way of doing something I would have iterated further and implemented it or have it implemented.

So I don‘t see how suddenly the experience transfer is gone. Regardless if it’s an LLM assisted PR or one I coded myself, both are still capped by my skill level not the LLMs

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#222

Post by caconym_ »

alyxya wrote: post #54

I personally don’t think I care if a blog post is AI generated or not. The only thing that matters to me is the content. I use ChatGPT to learn about a variety of different things, so if someone came up with an interesting set of prompts and follow ups and shared a summary of the research ChatGPT did, it could be meaningful content to me. > No, don't use it to fix your grammar, or for translations, or for whatever el…

> It would be more human to handwrite your blog post instead. I don’t see how this is a good argument. The use of tools to help with writing and communication should make it easier to convey your thoughts, and that itself is valuable.

Whether I hand write a blog post or type it into a computer, I'm the one producing the string of characters I intend for you to read. If I use AI to write it, I am not. This is a far, far, far more important distinction than whatever differences we might imagine arise from hand writing vs. typing.

> your thoughts

No, they aren't! Not if you had AI write the post for you. That's the problem!

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#223

Post by aakkaakk »

jvanderbot wrote: post #143
latexr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does. If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review. And if it does need review, why would the AI be trustworthy if it did a poor job the first time? This is like reviewing your own PRs, it completely defeats the purpose. And no, using different models doesn’t fix the issue. That’s just adding several layers of stupid on top of each other and praying that so…

I get your point, but reviewing your own PRs is a very good idea. As insulting as it is to submit an AI-generated PR without any effort at review while expecting a human to look it over, it is nearly as insulting to not just open the view the reviewer will have and take a look. I do this all the time and very often discover little things that I didn't see while tunneled into the code itself.

Yes! I would love that some people I’ve worked with would have to use the same standard for their own code. Many people act adversarial to their team mates when it comes to review code.

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#224

Post by mirzap »

This post could easily be generated by AI, no way to tell for sure. I'm more insulted if the title or blog thumbnail is misleading, or if the post is full of obvious nonsense, etc.

If a post contains valuable information that I learn from it, I don't really care if AI wrote it or not. AI is just a tool, like any other tool humans invented.

I'm pretty sure people had the same reaction 50 years ago, when the first PCs started appearing: "It's insulting to see your calculations made by personal electronic devices."

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#225

Post by latexr »

px43 wrote: post #212
latexr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does. If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review. And if it does need review, why would the AI be trustworthy if it did a poor job the first time? This is like reviewing your own PRs, it completely defeats the purpose. And no, using different models doesn’t fix the issue. That’s just adding several layers of stupid on top of each other and praying that so…

> If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review. So, your minimum bar for a useful AI is that it must always be perfect and a far better programmer than any human that has ever lived? Coding agents are basically interns. They make stupid mistakes, but even if they're doing things 95% correctly, then they're still adding a ton of value to the dev process. Human reviewers can use AI tools to quickly sniff out com…

> So, your minimum bar for a useful AI is that it must always be perfect and a far better programmer than any human that has ever lived?

You are transparently engaging in bad faith by purposefully straw manning the argument. No one is arguing for “far better programmer than any human that has ever lived”. That is an exaggeration used to force the other person to reframe their argument within its already obvious context and make it look like they are admitting they were wrong. It’s a dirty argument, and against the HN guidelines (for good reason).

> Coding agents are basically interns.

No, they are not. Interns have the capacity to learn and grow and not make the same mistakes over and over.

> but even if they're doing things 95% correctly

They’re not. 95% is a gross exaggeration.

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#226

Post by latchkey »

As a test, I used AI to rewrite their blog post, keeping the same tone and context but fewer words. It got the point across, and I enjoyed it more because I didn't have to read as much. I did edit it slightly to make it a bit less obviously AI'ish...

---

Honestly, it feels rude to hand me something churned out by a lexical bingo machine when you could’ve written it yourself. I'm a person with thoughts, humor, contradictions, and experience not a content bin.

Don't you like the pride of making something that's yours? You should.

Don't use AI to patch grammar or dodge effort. Make the mistake. Feel awkward. Learn. That's being human.

People are kinder than you think. By letting a bot speak for you, you cut off the chance for connection.

Here's the secret: most people want to help you. You just don't ask. You think smart people never need help. Wrong. The smartest ones know when to ask and when to give.

So, human to human, save the AI for the boring stuff. Lead with your own thoughts. The best ideas are the ones you've actually felt.

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#227

Post by o11c »

sesm wrote: post #103
jihadjihad wrote: post #23

It's similarly insulting to read your AI-generated pull request. If I see another "dart-on-target" emoji... You're telling me I need to use 100% of my brain, reasoning power, and time to go over your code, but you didn't feel the need to hold yourself to the same standard?

To be fair, the same problem existed before AI tools, with people spitting out a ton of changes without explaining what problem are they trying to solve and what's the idea behind the solution. AI tools just made it worse.

There is one way in which AI has made it easier: instead of maintainers trying to figure out how to talk someone into being a productive contributor, now "just reach for the banhammer" is a reasonable response.

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#228

Post by yashasolutions »

paulpauper wrote: post #157
alyxya wrote: post #54

I personally don’t think I care if a blog post is AI generated or not. The only thing that matters to me is the content. I use ChatGPT to learn about a variety of different things, so if someone came up with an interesting set of prompts and follow ups and shared a summary of the research ChatGPT did, it could be meaningful content to me. > No, don't use it to fix your grammar, or for translations, or for whatever el…

I have human-written blog posts, and I can rest assured no one reads those either.

Yeah, same here. I’ve got to the stage where what I write is mostly just for myself as a reminder, or to share one-to-one with people I work with. It’s usually easier to put it in a blog post than spend an hour explaining it in a meeting anyway. Given the state of the internet these days, that’s probably all you can really expect from blogging.

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#229

Post by cyrialize »

I'm reading a blog because I'm interested in the voice a writer has.

If I'm finding that voice boring, I'll stop reading - whether or not AI was used.

The generic AI voice, and by that I mean very little prompting to add any "flavor", is boring.

Of course I've used AI to summarize things and give me information, like when I'm looking for a specific answer.

In the case of blogs though, I'm not always trying to find an "answer", I'm just interested in what you have to say and I'm reading for pleasure.

Re: It's insulting to read AI-generated blog posts

#230

Post by [deleted] »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #197
nbardy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know you can AI review the PR too, don't be such a curmudgeon. I have PR's at work I and coworkers fully AI generated and fully AI review. And

AIs generating code which will then be reviewed by AIs. Résumés generated by AIs being evaluated by AI recruiters. This timeline is turning into such a hilarious clown world. The future is bleak.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN