| ▲ | b-kf 3 hours ago |
| bit meta but can I just applaud the article? Descriptive title, immediately comes to the point, no elaborate fluff, factual... what a nice change of pace. 95% of other users finding this would have done much worse. This is not clickbait, not calling for a social media campaign, has no embedded tweets of interaction with Google engineers trying to shame them, no singling out of individuals, ... Not sure if a user posting own material should declare so with `show hn` or so, that might be the only possible avenue of criticism (but I don't know the netiquette around that well enough). |
|
| ▲ | zahlman 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| With JavaScript disabled I had to inspect page source and remove "hidden" attributes from divs for content to show up. There's no placeholder text, no attempt to justify the need for JS at all, no consideration of the possibility that someone might be using a JS whitelisting tool (such as NoScript) on the modern Web despite its clear utility. For a blog post. Aside from that: > Descriptive title, immediately comes to the point, no elaborate fluff, factual... I'll give you "descriptive title". I could write this much more directly and pleasantly. |
| |
| ▲ | c-hendricks 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I really feel like this genre of comment should fall under this "don't" from the HN guidelines: > 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. You're willingly disabling a part of web atandards. | | |
| ▲ | zahlman 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The web really doesn't, and shouldn't, depend on these things. I use a JavaScript whitelisting tool, so that I can allow JavaScript on pages where it's merited, when the trust for that functionality has been earned. Nowadays it's used for things that have been possible in plain HTML for decades. In this case, text has been added to HTML that causes otherwise visible text not to display, presumably so that it can fade in or do some slide-show effect or who knows what else. My annoyance with these things is hardly "tangential"; it smacks me in the face multiple times a day. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Tiberium 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're in for a surprise then, because this article is clearly in an LLM style. That doesn't mean it's hallucinated, no, there is a real human behind, but the actual content that you enjoyed is LLM-written. |
| |
| ▲ | andy99 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I also saw the tells but found it direct enough that it wasn’t really a concern. LLM writing style is a good signal that something is slop and should be ignored but isn’t exactly causal... it would be an interesting exercise to try and write something very direct and clearly insightful, informative, etc (all the slashdot adjectives I guess) but do it with some clear LLM tells and see how many people summarily dismiss it. Edit- upon rereading I think this is probably human written, but definitely has the LLM / LinkedIn style. In any event, it’s probably as close to be experiment I mention above as I’ve seen. | |
| ▲ | knollimar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Give me that style guide and spread it around then! | | |
| ▲ | Tiberium 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Unfortunately as far as I know there's currently no way to do brain upload. I've interacted with LLMs for like 3 years, and after a while the brain gets turned into a very good classifier for most of the default LLM styles. It's the overall structure of the article, the cadence itself, those short punchy sentences, negation. If you want some better evidence, Pangram flags 1/3 of this article as AI generated, but that's because they'd rather have a false negative than a false positive. If you want another funny evidence piece, see https://lab-stack.com/blog/dgx-spark-memory-hard-wall/ - a random article I found by direct phrase search. It has a similar structure and "My initial theory was simple" word for word. | |
| ▲ | zahlman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I genuinely don't understand why other people like this style. I find it positively dreadful. | |
| ▲ | Starlevel004 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When the entire post is staccato sentences it's very easy to tell. |
| |
| ▲ | flexagoon an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think it is. It reads exactly the way I would write it myself. | |
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think they were complementing the absence of trash talk, not the absence of LLM. | |
| ▲ | jatora 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's no secret LLM's can disseminate news in a superior fashion to 99% of human writers, when instructed properly | | |
| ▲ | zahlman 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "Disseminate news" is not the same as "write tolerable prose", however. | |
| ▲ | halsafar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe to someone who is new to the world. | |
| ▲ | lysace 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Confession: I sometimes ask an LLM to explain something to a certain kind of audience. Usually I need to ask it to keep things briefer and which things to really focus on. I typically do 2-3 iterations and then manual editing to make it feel like 'me'. This would be for a 2-3 sentence kind of thing. Not a native English speaker. I used to think I was pretty good, but I get way less misunderstood this way. (I didn't use an LLM for this message.) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | javxfps 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Thank you for the feedback! It's my first time posting here, so I didn't really know I should do that. I'll do that now. |
| |
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
