> It is unreasonable to expect “specific complaints” about AI vomit like this, because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it. It’s simply not feasible to give specific criticisms, because the criticism is with all of it.

But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?

No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.

It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written" or not in the comments, although I'd hope it'd be considered vastly off-topic.

▲

jjulius 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

>When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life.

At the risk of being flip... maybe close this tab and move on?

>It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth...

Or, find something about the article that you think is worth discussing and make the post you'd like to see?

▲

palmotea 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?

> No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.

I think the point of those comments is to save others that time.

Do you really think it's reasonable to expect every single person to read some piece of slop, and independently make an effort to evaluate it to determine if it's worth reading?

▲

cobolcomesback an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well

The front page of HN is limited real estate. I visit HN to discover and read interesting and quality content. Whether or not I am “forced” to read it, every piece of AI vomit that’s on the front page is taking a spot away from the real human content that I (and others) really want to see.

> here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written"

I genuinely find this discussion in the comments to be of more value than reading the AI content in the article.

People will discuss the content in front of them. If you don’t want that discussion to be about AI content, then the solution is to not submit (or upvote) AI content.

	▲	no-name-here 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> limited real estate Even more precious than HN real estate is the time of (how many HN readers are there?) unknowingly spending their time to read something that wasn't even worth 1 person’s time to have written themselves. (In OP’s case they said it partly came from Russian and provided the first draft so I'm more understanding.)
	▲	kgwxd an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		To expand on your previous point, "because the criticism is with all of it", I think the criticism is really with the HN community allowing so much of it to reach the front page. A little bit would be tolerable, but the ENTIRE front page is garbage like this now.