I really wish there was an HN guideline that I could point to which says that you shouldn't complain about LLM writing, in the same way that's there's guidance on site annoyances:

"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."

LLM-written content is now too common to be interesting and complaining about it does not make it stop, it just derails comment sections. The reptitive complaints are getting as annoying as the LLM-written content!

Why do you give up so easily? Human culture and the already low quality bar of writing should be allowed to fall even further because you are annoyed by those that want to protect it?

Why should your opinion be worth more than those who would like to retain a semblance of meaning in what we use to convey ideas? LLM writing is sheer trash. It comes off like a coke-addled car salesman who is making a pitch to VCs about his latest scientific discovery that will 200x their investment.

Poorly written LLM content is NOT a tangential annoyance. If this is too much, maybe you should simulate HN using

Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442

Wait isn’t there actually the opposite HN guideline? In that LLM generated content is not allowed here?

But is it really? Low effort content might be the majority, but does that make it common enough to be a cosmetic annoyance like website styling? I'm not sure it does anyway because the content is the issue, not the styling or annoyances. A human written article with an idiot neon scrolling, blinking title would be fine. A plain text LLM article would not. One is objectively more annoying than the other.

I really wish there was an HN guideline that banned AI generated content outright. Until then all we can do is flag slop.

If the "author" didn't feel like taking the time to write the text why should I take the time to read it? LLMs are great for summarizing, if you are going to slop 100% of a document make it a summary and save us all the time.

Indeed.

I LOVE reading LLM content. I find that they tend to present things in a way that keeps my attention - something I have struggled with my whole life. I also use LLMs to assist with managing my own thoughts and helping make things coherent overall.

Sure, there is a LOT of slop out there, but the promotion of quality content is what crowd-sourced curation like HN tends towards. Much of the LLM assisted content here has a high signal to noise ratio, and is clearly a lot more involved than simply prompting "write an article on X" - despite what the haters say.

This is a breathtakingly dumb idea