Regarding 1, I think a) a sizeable fraction of voters are not able to recognize AI-generated text b) many who notice don't care, or are willing to overlook it if the premise is interesting enough. (The latter is true for me, on occasion)

Maybe we need a two-dimensional voting system: good/bad, ai/human. I think the second axis could cut down on meta-discussions over how much of the article was AI-generated.

▲

DaiPlusPlus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> many who notice don't care, or are willing to overlook it if the premise is interesting enough

I imagine the set of articles that are somehow both interesting-enough-to-read but not interesting-enough-to-write is smaller than you'd think.

▲

Retr0id 5 hours ago | parent [-]

In most cases the bar is not "is it worth reading" but "is it worth discussing"

	▲	asdff 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why even go to this site then? If it is all llm posts and llm comments, just prompt claude to make you a self hosted truman show esque forum to do your venting and what have you’s with the llm fodder.

▲

andrewmutz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do we need anything more than good/bad?

If there is a great post on a topic and the author used AI when generating it, what’s so bad about that?

▲

Retr0id 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Different people weight the slop factor differently, which is the main source of pain at the moment. (For example, another top-level comment in this thread suggests banning AI-generated content outright)

▲

andrewmutz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What’s different between “slop” and “bad”

	▲	Retr0id 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Take any existing article you find insightful and then ask an LLM to "rewrite it, but make better and more engaging". The result is likely "good + slop", assuming the actual content is preserved.

▲

hallman76 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> a) a sizeable fraction of voters are not able to recognize AI-generated text b) many who notice don't care, or are willing to overlook it if the premise is interesting enough.

agreed.

For me, the issue I have is that a vocal group seems to despise AI-edited content and they can't manage to take their disgust eleswhere.

AI-editing is another tool, just like spellcheck.

▲

ryandrake 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If what people here say is right, and AI usage online is growing and accelerating, then by the end of the year, the vast, vast majority articles posted to the internet (and linked by HN readers) are going to be AI slop, at which point it is not going to matter. "This article is AI" is going to add about as much insight to the conversation as "The author used a spell checker."

▲

archagon 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A good link aggregator should strive to select the <1% of articles that are actually high quality. Who cares what “everyone” is doing?

▲

pixl97 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't that what the vote system is? If the users are selecting low quality then what exactly?

	▲	sph 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Then we are fucked. A quality platform must strive for more quality than what the average lurker, likely a bot, decides is worth reading. That’s how you get modern Reddit. Is the goal of this site to remain high-quality, or to rely on random, anonymous users to discern quality? Consider the possibility that the two options might be incompatible.