> By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution.

Way to stretch my comment and make it mean something I didn't mean! You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM.

First, I wasn't talking about generating whole software features. Second, pretending as if I implied anything like that even remotely is a disingenuous and frankly a bad-faith style of debating.

You are looking for some sort of disagreement when there is none. I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So really confused why you've to come here and look for disagreements when there is none and be combative, no less? If this is your style of debating, I refuse to engage further.

Next time, you might want to review the HN guidelines and be less combative: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

▲ AdieuToLogic an hour ago | parent [-]

>> By that logic, if I hand a s/w engineering team a PostIt note saying "add feature X", then all they are doing is "revise and refine" the solution I made, not generating a solution.

> You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM.

I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation. The use of "add feature X" was to keep the response succinct and served as a placeholder.

> Next time, you might want to review the HN guidelines and be less combative

And you might want to review same after originally authoring:

  These incessant complaints about LLM-written text don't 
  help and they make the comment threads really boring. HN 
  should really introduce a rule to ban such complaints just 
  like it bans complaints about tangential annoyances like 
  article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button 
  breakage

	▲	throwaway150 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation. The extrapolation led to something I didn't imply. If you're making the extrapolation to add a point in addition to what I said, I'm sure that'd have been very welcome if you hadn't posed it in a combative manner that comes across as a 'take down' of my comment. Going back to where it all began: > Using an LLM to generate a post with the implication it is the author's own thoughts is the quintessential definition of intellectual laziness. Extrapolation, yes. But non sequitur because my comment not even remotely implied generating a whole post using LLM. So your extrapolation stands well on its own. I just don't see the need to pose it as a sort of "take down" on my comment. What I find really funny is that in reality like you, I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So we must be in agreement? Yet you manage to find disagreements where there are none and be combative about it. Well done, sir! > And you might want to review same after originally authoring I have. I've found nothing in the guidelines that forbid me from expressing my frustrations over the abundant supply of trite comments. Nothing there forbids me from begging the HN overlords to discourage trite comments about LLM-written text. They already discourage comments about tangential issues like website format, name collisions, back-button issues. They might as well discourage comments about LLM-written text. That was my request. The HN overlords may not pay heed to my request and that's fine. But after reading the guidelines, I don't see why I cannot make the request I've in my mind.