| ▲ | aozgaa 7 hours ago | |||||||
In general, it seems HN does not like to read llm-generated articles. I ran into this myself when using an llm to edit some stuff I wrote. At the time, I found this a bit irritating, but with a few weeks time I see the merit. The informational content tends to fall into “derivative” territory when LLM’s write stuff. And people are here for novelty and some socialization. Also LLM prose seems optimized for engagement rather than concise communication. Takes longer to sift through linguistic boilerplate to get to the point. (The quoted bit being a case in point) | ||||||||
| ▲ | fireflash38 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Why would anyone spend time reading something that someone couldn't even spend the time to write themselves? | ||||||||
| ▲ | jchw 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I just find it to be utter dreck. It has one of the most agitating prose styles I've ever seen. I would legitimately rather read actual broken English than the cliché polished turds Claude pops out. I am not an LLM hater, I think these tools are pretty impressive and often even useful, but even if I didn't care about the fact that I want to read communication from humans and not robots (and I do care about that, FWIW) I just find the current LLMs are horrid at writing. And while the comments are always flooded with people like me, the upvotes seem to tell a different story; clearly LLM writing really does appeal to some people. Or idk, maybe a lot of people who vote on stories and don't comment don't actually read them. Hard to say for sure. | ||||||||
| ||||||||