And earlier they say “$120 upfront might as well be a million when you’re making $2/day”. The whole article reads like it was vomited up by an LLM trained exclusively on LinkedIn posts. The math errors are consistent with that.

▲

testdelacc1 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They say $120 might as well be a million and they immediately follow that up with “$100 down payment to get started”. But I thought it was like a million dollars??

LLM slop. Author couldn’t even be bothered to read the slop before clicking publish.

▲

safety1st 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah way too many tell-tale ChatGPT rhetorical devices in this article, which is a shame because the topic and premise are fascinating, but those turned me off from finishing it.

AI slop hits 700+ upvotes on Hacker News. The Dead Internet and the triumph of quantity over quality loom. A sign of things to come.

▲

TeMPOraL an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> The Dead Internet and the triumph of quantity over quality loom

always_has_been.jpg

The Internet has drowned to death in garbage back when they coined the term "content marketing". That was long before transformer models were a thing.

People have this weird impression that LLMs created a deluge of slop and reduced overall quality of most text on-line. I disagree - the quality arguably improved, since SOTA LLMs write better than most people. The only thing that dropped is content marketing salaries. You were already reading slop, LLMs just let the publisher skip the human content spouter middleman.

	▲	baq 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I’m old enough to remember people complaining about the exact same thing except they called it eternal September.

▲

cycomanic an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's getting boring how every. single. article. has comments how the article is AI generated. The funny thing is the article writing styles are completely different, but every one has apparently "tell-tale" signs of "AI slop". It just gets tiring.

For what it's worth I pasted the first couple of paragraphs into several AI detectors and 4/5 said it's clean, while one said mixed (partly AI generated partly human). So either all these AI generation tools are crap, or the text is not so "obviously" AI generated. Not saying either way, but it seems to at least not be so obvious.

	▲	Version467 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		All of those tools are garbage. There is no reliable automated way to detect ai generated text. In 2023 OpenAI had a tool for this as well and they eventually took it down because it wasn't accurate enough. The major AI labs are probably best positioned to make such a tool work. If even they can't, then some random company with access to a fraction of a data and a fraction of the compute almost certainly also cannot.
	▲	mattvr an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The detectors are wrong. Here’s the thing: AI slop has a distinctive structure that many of us spot from a mile away. The kicker? This setup-punchline format sets off a red alert for astute readers’ AI detectors. This isn’t just AI slop, it’s an industrial AI sludge factory. (note: this was ironically written by a human)