> LLMs are writing as well as humans for people who think writing words is the goal.

Only if what you mean by this is "for people who think padding a word count is the goal".

LLMs absolutely do not write well, by human standards.

bigstrat2003 an hour ago | parent [-]

LLMs don't do anything well by human standards. Not even the one thing (programming) they are supposed to be good at. It's disheartening how many people are prepared to accept the slop an LLM puts out just because it's fast.

▲

ACCount37 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I've seen way too much humanslop to be able to reject LLM slop outright.

There are areas where the average of LLM slop already beats the average of humanslop by a sizeable margin.

	▲	prerok 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Possibly, although I have to say that I get PRs now where it's clear it's a miss by the LLM and was generated by a human who did not take the time to understand the subject matter. In the past, a human producing humanslop would get a serious talking to, but nowadays it's apparently a valid excuse "well, an LLM generated it". This approach is placing a huge burden on the reviewers, much more so than in the past.

▲

cindyllm 12 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]