the irony of an article about human fatigue being detected as AI-written by half the comments is doing more for the argument than the article itself
The human-in-the-loop is tired
41–50 of 221 posts
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
You created a new account for this?
No. I created an account for this. Hacker news used to be a place I could come read interesting content and peoples reactions and thoughts to it. now it's interesting articles with 100% of the comments whining that it's written by AI. Sad what hackernews has become
This guy is just another one of those ai-pilled noob coders
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#43While I appreciate and agree with the key points of the post, Claude's writing style fingerprints are all over it and I guess it's even more exhausting to read someone's AI written article.
"It's not" - 3 matches Dashline - present Yes, it's AI-written
This very well may be AI written. Then again, the stuff our PMs output, all pre-AI, now would all qualify as "AI written".
There are certain writing styles, which even if you wrote them all yourself, most people will now attribute to AI. The all-too-common em-dash, yes sure. Guess what, it's a thing that was actually taught as "the thing to use if you write properly". So guess what lots of folks consciously put into their writing to sound more professional even before AI. Bingo!
Similarly CVs. A lot of the stuff that lots of us complain about post-AI was "good practice to do" pre-AI. But most people didn't bother. Couldn't be bothered. Now that AI was trained on it and people ask their AIs to write CVs, it's all over the place.
A cover letter that actually picks up on the actual job description posted and connects it up to your CV? That used to be hard work and most people didn't bother. It made you stand out. Now it "reeks of AI" :shrug:
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have such a hard time believing the implied premise of these complaints-about-complaints. Just say you don't mind AI writing - make that argument. Don't make this nonsensical, defeatist, "if it's common, stop criticizing it" argument.
[flagged]
Do you think the sort of people who complain about articles being AI-written are incapable of writing articles or something? Why would not being willing to read articles produced that way result in not reading any articles?
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#45>It's also, frankly, quite lonely. Programming with an LLM is an intensely solitary activity.
> You and the machine, going back and forth, refining and prompting and reviewing.
I just want to comment on this. Maybe im part of some spectrum, but building stuff with AI in that "solitary mode" ive found it really enjoyable. It takes me too the times 30 years ago when I was a 14 year old writing my own games on Basic and C++ with Allegro.
I had nobody but tutorials and books. And the hky of building, compiling and seeing the result for myself was very enticing.
Maybe it's because I found peers my age uninteresting. I lived in a small Mexican town where 14 year olds where thinking in bullying someone, and unfortunately that someone was usually me.
If someone remembers The Hackers Manifesto (The Conscience of a Hacker) I feel that again after so many years, with AI. Edit: particularly this part:
---
I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...
Or feels threatened by me...
Or thinks I'm a smart ass...
Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is AI, but I bet it has been through editing/review to match a corporate style. LLMs were trained on this.
It's AI. https://www.pangram.com/history/09db86cf-37fb-4b27-94bf-a9f2...
If you switch on the 'Supporting Evidence' on that site, it seems to be basing it's opinion on three things:
- Use a descriptive triad of "reviewing, directing, and course" (it incorrectly misunderstood 'course correcting'). That's not common in writing but humans do do it occasionally.
- Using the word 'thoughtful'. I don't understand that as evidence of AI.
- Using the words 'Book Apart' together, which would be a clear AI signal if it wasn't the name of a publisher of short books, and being used in that context in the article.
I don't think you should put much stock in the output of pangram.com.
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#47I don't understand how people are using AI.
A lot of the time, what I want to build, doesn't have a succinct English sentence to describe it. If I describe the user requirement I just get a Fisher-Price toy thing that kind of ignores most of the adjectives and adverbs in my requirement. So I'd have to prompt with a big list of specs and algorithms for the specific thing I want. Then what's the point?
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#48unlike the op, I've been having a wonderful time using claude, both at work and for my own personal projects, so I will share what has worked for me, just in case it resonates with anyone else. my anecdotal advice is to avoid the entire "agent" temptation, and treat the LLM as a code generator. have a single session running at a time. come up with a plan, iterate on it until you are satisfied, then tell it to execute…
Unfortunately the incremental approach doesn't help when it comes to the review step by another user, they've still gotta take it as a lump and apply fresh eyes on it.
not if you break your work into a stack of PRs, which is the standard practice for my team at work. you just keep adding PRs to the top of the stack while the reviewer proceeds from the bottom. if something changes you propagate the change up the stack, which LLMs are also pretty good at doing.
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#49unlike the op, I've been having a wonderful time using claude, both at work and for my own personal projects, so I will share what has worked for me, just in case it resonates with anyone else. my anecdotal advice is to avoid the entire "agent" temptation, and treat the LLM as a code generator. have a single session running at a time. come up with a plan, iterate on it until you are satisfied, then tell it to execute…
I've found that I can go back and forth between two workstreams (at most) but beyond that my brain gets fried from the context switching.
Re: The human-in-the-loop is tired
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's AI. https://www.pangram.com/history/09db86cf-37fb-4b27-94bf-a9f2...
If you switch on the 'Supporting Evidence' on that site, it seems to be basing it's opinion on three things: - Use a descriptive triad of "reviewing, directing, and course" (it incorrectly misunderstood 'course correcting'). That's not common in writing but humans do do it occasionally. - Using the word 'thoughtful'. I don't understand that as evidence of AI. - Using the words 'Book Apart' together, which would be a…
Pangram's "Supporting Evidence" feature is misleading and you should ignore it. It's entirely separate from the classifier that determines whether text is AI; it just takes text that's already been classified as AI and looks for some hardcoded AI tells in it. I kind of wish they'd get rid of it, but nontechnical users really like it.
The classifier itself has a very low rate of false positives: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/BFI_WP_2...