Remix.run Logo
manphone 2 hours ago

It’s the same reason why everyone doesn’t wanna read LLM generated blog posts. The agreement used to be generally that you would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading and when the agreement changes the quality changes as well.

gavinsyancey an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah -- if it wasn't worth your time to write the post, why do I think it should be worth my time to read it?

mbesto 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit.

> would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading

To your point however, the reason people don't like AI generated blogs is because there is a explicit recognition that the author of the blog lacked effort. There is a visceral response for the reader about the social contract "if you didn't spend as much time as I did why should I care about what's written here", it's however NOT that the quality is inherently poor (but perhaps one my insinuate that notion).

asdf88990 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

> You can't unilaterally say all AI blogs are low quality. That's bullshit.

Quality is a bit nuanced but that quality of AI generated content is subpar to expert output is fairly established.

The implications of this ever becoming false amounts to GAI.

27183 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Writing is thinking. If you don't spend time writing, then you didn't spend time thinking. LLMs don't think. Consequently, if you outsourced your writing to an LLM the resulting artifact was born of a thoughtless process. Instead of engaging your readers in your thought process you're tricking them with a puzzle. Readers will try to understand what you're thinking about (at least the non-passive ones will). This activity is a dead end for LLM output.

Leonard_of_Q 9 minutes ago | parent [-]

Is writing thinking? Good writing requires thinking but does that also go for sloppy writing? What is thinking? This is the subject of a discussion [1, 2] I'm in - which in true HN style has been greyed-out because of ${reasons} - regarding the question whether these models 'think'. Your comment on writing [being] thinking supports the idea that what these models do is a form of thinking: selecting the next most likely descriptor given the current problem space including all previously added descriptors.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884193

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48890755

pydry 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or rather because they are always just of poor quality

ungovernableCat an hour ago | parent | next [-]

If you had a time machine and you could republish a claude generated article about some interesting tech topic to 2010 I'm sure it would get ok engagement.

To me the issue is that everything becomes written in the same style pattern. I don't know why but if I spot it I wince internally and immediately skim the post or just outright stop reading. A large part of it is overexposure. For me it's made browsing the internet quite uncomfortable since it's unavoidable.

I mainly spend my online time in group chats these days.

27183 an hour ago | parent [-]

> ok engagement

That is such a miserably low bar

pmarreck 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Define “quality”

(I’m pretty sure both you and I would “know it when we see it”, but…)

locknitpicker an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It’s the same reason why everyone doesn’t wanna read LLM generated blog posts. The agreement used to be generally that you would spend more time writing than I would have to spend reading and when the agreement changes the quality changes as well.

That's not it at all.

The problem with AI slop is that in general it's not worth reading, because to start off even the author deemed the topic wasn't even worth writing to begin with.

Worst, most AI slop blog spam was obviously not even reviewed by the bloggers who prompted them into existence. This means is also content that even the bloggers themselves felt wasn't worth reading at all.

But somehow they expect us to invest our time reading AI slop?

bombcar 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

Think how much LinkedIn slop wasn’t worth reading BEFORE AI; but at least some effort had to be put in. Now none is needed.

Der_Einzige 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Cope for being a carbon chauvinist. The medium is not the message (and the folks who try to convince you that it is are loony/charlatans/frauds like Marshall McLuhan). The message is the message.