|
| ▲ | nimih 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| AI writing is worse on the merits: it is lower quality and has concerning externalities associated with its production. |
| |
| ▲ | ddtaylor 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Often the commentor wants to take a shortcut and just say it's AI written and hand wave it away. A comment should argue the merit of the work not attack the source or medium. | |
| ▲ | lukeasch21 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's also reasonably effective proxy to determine whether somebody is actually passionate about the topic they're writing about. If you've got a very strong interest in a specific niche you're typically able to pour pages and pages of ink down talking about it. If you can't be bothered to take the necessary time to distill your thoughts, it signals to me that your thoughts on the topic aren't as worthwhile as someone who's deeply invested in it. Of course this proxy isn't perfect, I understand many people use AI to make their writing more comprehensible when English isn't their first language. |
|
|
| ▲ | captainbland 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The attention economics are bad more than anything else. LLM articles ask us to put more time into reading it than the LLM put into writing it. Actually committing time to production is the minimum bar which suggests something is worth our time in a world where so much is already vying for our attention. |
| |
| ▲ | ddtaylor 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | If a truly amazing thing was released tomorrow that had massive utility you wouldn't care how long it took to create and would just use it. I get the attention economy is messed up right now, but using it as a justification for being curmudgeonly or abandoning principles is lame. |
|
|
| ▲ | rpearl 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| an article written by an AI about fonts, when the AI fundamentally does not look at rendered text, is inherently without merit |
| |
| ▲ | ddtaylor 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Those are good arguments to be made regardless of who wrote them. I'm all for actual arguments against the work instead of hand waving it away as AI and being too lazy to say what is wrong with the work. Can the same argument be made about a writer that is blind? If a blind person submitted work about fonts would we be equally as dismissive? |
|
|
| ▲ | unleaded 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Who would want to read about the thoughts of an AI? All it knows about your thoughts are from what text you already fed it with, and it will end up adding things you don't intend or agree with. Even just telling it to fix grammar it can subtly do this. |
|
| ▲ | wastewastewaste 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It reads like a dog wrote it. Whether the writer is terrible or LLM being terrible, get this shit out of here |
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We need an update to the HN posting guidelines that addresses this. We already have: Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
I'm not welcome to complain that the website is a tiny vertical strip down my screen with 6 inches of whitespace on each side, so we should also not welcome the boring, common "The article is written by AI" criticism, which is going to apply to 99% of articles by the end of 2026. It's already too common to be interesting criticism. |
