It was flagged for being clearly botted, and I don't just mean LLM-generated (although it is also that). When I posted on and flagged the old submission, I noted that it had over two dozen upvotes in 15 minutes, despite the essay having a helpful "54 min read" indicator at the top. I truly do not believe the upvotes on these submissions are organic, and it really destroys my faith in HN that this was restored when the first one went down successfully.

(If by some chance I am wrong and this monster of an LLM-generated essay really got dozens of people instantly upvoting it from the title alone, that fact would also not give me much faith in HN, I have to add.)

▲

snikeris 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't have to read the whole thing to upvote it.

▲

applfanboysbgon 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Does the first 1/5th or 1/4th of the article provide such a compelling case that one wants to stop reading it and return to upvote it? I certainly didn't think so.

	▲	ankaz 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

kjkjadksj 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I upvoted this without reading. For me sometimes the article is just the spark for a far more interesting set of comments that overshadow it. And it is really that I am voting for.

▲

applfanboysbgon 14 hours ago | parent [-]

That is certainly an interesting perspective.

	▲	phs318u an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I've done the same. Discussions on some subjects are worth having and so I will sometimes upvote because I really want to hear what the HN crowd - who are by and large pretty smart and have interesting perspectives - have to say.