> That rubric only works until sufficiently advanced LLM-generated HN posts are indistinguishable from human-generated HN posts.

if a comment made by a LLM is indistinguishable from a normal one, it'd be impossible to moderate anyway unless one starts tracking people across comments and see the consistency of their replies and overall stance so I don't particularly think it is useful to worry about people who will go the extra length to go undetected

It's pretty trivial to finetune an LLM to output posts that are indistinguishable.

That's assuming a certain outcome: indistinguishable posts.

Some would say LLM-generated posts will eventually be superior information-wise. In which case possibly the behavior will change naturally.

Or maybe they don't get there any time soon and stay in the uncanny valley for a long time.

I'm kinda fine with a "if you can't be bothered to even change the standard-corporate-BS-tone of your copypaste, you get downvoted" - for all I know some people might be more clever with their prompting to get something less crap-sounding, and then they'll just live or die on the coherence of the comment.

Fascinating that very minor variations on established sampling techniques still generate papers. :) Afaik, neither top-p nor top-k sampling has conclusively been proven superior to good old-fashioned temperature sampling. Certainly, recent sampling techniques can make the text "sound different", but not necessarily read better. I.e., you're replacing one kind of bot generated "slop" with another.