Who cares if it is low effort? I got lots of upvotes for my link to Claude about this, and pncnmnp seems happy. The downvoted comment from ChatGPT was maybe a bit spammy?

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Who cares if it is low effort?

It's a weird thing to wonder after so many people expressed their dislike of the upthread low-effort comment with a down vote (and then another voiced a more explicit opinion). The point is that a reader may want to know that the text they're reading is something a human took the time to write themselves. That fact is what makes it valuable.

> pncnmnp seems happy

They just haven't commented. There is no reason to attribute this specific motive to that fact.

▲

drsopp 5 days ago | parent [-]

> The point is that a reader may want to know that the text they're reading is something a human took the time to write themselves.

The reader may also simply want information that helps them.

> They just haven't commented.

Yes, they did.

▲

Dylan16807 5 days ago | parent [-]

> The reader may also simply want information that helps them.

The reader will generally want at least a cursory verification that it is information that helps, which dataflow didn't try to do.

Especially when you're looking for specific documents and you don't check if the documents are real. (dataflow's third one doesn't appear to be.)

	▲	drsopp 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		This I agree with completely.

▲

bee_rider 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yours was a little bit more useful, it you essentially used the LLM as a search engine to find a real article, right?

Directly posting the random text generated by the LLM is more annoying. I mean, they didn’t even vouch or it or verify that it was right.