Comment by skrebbel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by skrebbel | Hacker News Reader

In case the author reads HN, I just wanted to share that I was rather irked by the writing style, the way it adds all kinds of weird irrelevant bits of info that don't actually clarify anything (eg "the same phenomenon Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining") and ways to make things sound more spectacular than they are (eg "Blu-Tack (yes, really)" or the whole story about "community trust").

I read on your about page that you use LLMs to assist your writing. Consider this comment a suggestion to depend on them less, or at least be more critical with their output. I've never been so frustrated reading a blog post as when I read yours as I flashed from interest to annoyance and back again many times.

To contrast, I found that tidbit about Einstein helpful, as it took my memory more promptly to when I studied it in physics classes.

I enjoyed the post more as a story more than as a report.

One of the things I'm not looking forward to with people "just throwing it through an LLM for a final pass" is the loss of individual voice.

Everything is starting to sound the same, and it's becoming monotonous

I agree. Every time I read "This highlights" or "This contrasts with" I want to puke.

The initial part was fine but when it got to the conclusion it was incredibly monotonous.

I do agree that "assisted writing" is going to get old fast. Though your comment did made me think of as an alterative to chatting with LLMs, AI could be used to present search results on a particular topic in whatever format you prefer. E.g. these breezy writeups, tiktok style clips, youtube, podcast, "just the facts", etc. Different strokes and all that.

As long as it's clear it's the machine or UI, I don't mind LLM output that much.

If I want to read LLM output, I'll type some input into one. I don't come to HN to get linked to shitty slightly-massaged LLM crap.

Hard disagree. I enjoyed reading every word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com