| |
| ▲ | tcdent 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Commenting about AI tone in an article is the new commenting about the contrast between the font color and the background being too narrow. Nobody wants to hear it over and over and over again on every thread. | | |
| ▲ | operatingthetan 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Every article isn't AI written. If it is AI written, it is worth calling it out to save others time. | |
| ▲ | popularonion 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Well, I appreciate the advance warning, so I want to hear it. | |
| ▲ | dualvariable 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | On the other hand, I get mentally exhausted reading AI slop over and over again. My brain can't help itself in looking for AI tells and gauging if writing sounds like AI or not. Then once it latches onto the idea that the writing is probably AI, then it feels like half my brain is just reading the text looking for the AI smells. Calling it "AI smells" like "code smells" might actually be what is going on in my brain, and I start code reviewing it at that level rather than reading it for what it does. I really would prefer people not just post slop. I don't care if you use it to clean up your own writing, but don't just let it rip. | |
| ▲ | exe34 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I do. If somebody says it's written by AI, it saves me clicking on it and wasting my time. | |
| ▲ | lynndotpy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I want to hear about it, and I am tired of seeing slop text over and over and over again on every thread. It's not AI tone, that's not a thing, it's just low quality text. | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're right that nobody wants to hear it, but I think that's because nobody wants to find out over and over and over that every thread is AI generated. Not because when something is AI generated, they wouldn't like a heads up so they can find something else. For example, I've had people thanking me for pointing out LLMish later in an article when it's not as obvious at the beginning. It saves the time of thinking the article is manually written when it'll later turn out to be AI instead. Note that I don't necessarily have anything against AI in particular, but rather the chronic lack of information density typical of LLM-generated articles. Some articles that were LLM-assisted are still information-dense enough to keep me satisfied. | |
| ▲ | wpm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Perhaps if they don't want to hear it they should stop upvoting the slop lazy crap articles to the front page in the first place. |
| |
| ▲ | King-Aaron 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There's probably a lot of bot activity going on behind that shift in sentiment I'd imagine. | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As someone who hates reading AI-written stuff (stylistically, I'm sure that someone could build an LLM that writes well) I have begrudingly accepted that it's here to stay. However, I think that AI-slop is genuinely harder to read and less information-dense than stuff written by a person, and I catch myself abandoning articles and other written content early on when they smell too much like AI. It's simply less worth it to read them because I'll have to spend some precious time figuring out wtf the text is actually trying to say. It seems like the flow is "User A writes bullet points and has a model convert them to prose to send to User B. User B then uses a model to convert the text back to bullet points." I would in every case prefer the bullet points or raw transcript of the AI session to just the final output. | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is harder to read, and it's especially egregious in the human-facing documentation or code comments. It takes considerable effort, rules, examples, hooks and prompt to keep the popular $model reasonably concise, and yet STILL from time to time it starts vomiting absolute garbage. At the moment the best recalibration is "shaming" it and showing both the negative (the vomit) and positive (slop replaced with human sentences). Good for a moment (up to 200k context). |
| |
| ▲ | handoflixue 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My good sir, I regret to inform you that the informality of the English language has been in decline for quite some time. Possibly since that vulgar bard Shakespeare abandoned all pretense of a shared language and raised a generation that thinks words like "fashionable"[sic!!] are real words. However, it is notable that the rules of this particular venue request one be charitable to your fellow forum goers, and thus the admonition that their preferred communication is "slop" is generally considered unwelcome. Would that you had only been able to word your own communication is in proper vocabulary and grammar; alas, I must conclude that even as you reject modernity, you have embraced the "slop" of the past. But to address your last sentence: OP explicitly admits to using AI in the Reddit comments, and apologizes for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wzw8zd/i_think_i.... If you are going to repeat this libel, at least have the decency to provide some sort of citation | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | is this supposed to be an example of bad writing because unnecessary bombast is definitely a sign of it good writing is not just replacing random words with entries from thesaurus.com, it's writing for your reader. that's one thing LLM-generated text is very bad at - frequently violates the show-don't-tell rule, it lacks any interiority by it's very nature, etc if you don't practice writing yourself, you don't develop the muscle of knowing what your reader's expectations are and you will forever remain a mediocre writer | | |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you know who the intended readers of that comment were? | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I assume myself and others like me since it is being posted on a forum where each and every comment has not only an audience but a points-based rating system Regardless of authorial intent, everything posted here is for the wider HN audience | | |
| ▲ | handoflixue 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I will concede I had assumed a more educated audience, which could pick out reference to a particular linguistic style, rather than confusing it for a wild joy ride through thesaurus.com Conversely, if you yourself write solely for points, then you might as well be a machine - for all reasonable virtues of truth, community, and free expression will find themselves at odds with such petty incentives. I am happy to lose a karma or two to speak my own mind, rather than playing puppet for your upvote. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It reads as an example of English writing that was once considered "proper". The point I see is that it shows how this complaint about AI writing is history rhyming with itself again. | | |
| ▲ | SR2Z 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is a difference between objections to style and objections to clarity and conciseness. My complaint with AI isn't that it's not formal enough, it's that there's so much bullshit and so little content in AI-generated blocks of text. | | |
| ▲ | handoflixue 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Slop" is generally meant as a derogatory label against anything in the AI vernacular - it is not an objection to clarity, it is a repudiation of the idea of using AI for writing at all. It's the same tired game we play, as a society, any time a new writing style enters the mainstream. That game goes back to at least Shakespeare's era, where our illustrious bard was called out for his tendency to make up words ("fashionable" being, I believe, an actual example of this?) |
|
|
|
|
|
