Hacker News Reader

Comment by fragmede | Hacker News Reader

Realy? Does having flawws really make four better reading? Okay, I'll admit that hurt me to right (as did that) but writing isn't furniture, and other than a couple of tells which I haven't kept pace with (eg use of the word "delve"), the problem with trying to key off of LLM generated content and decide quality, is that you can't tell if the LLM operator took three minutes to copy and pasted the whole thing (unless they accidentally leave in the prompts, which has happened, and is a dead giveaway that no one even proof skimmed it), or if they took more time with it and carefully considered the questions ChatGPT asked them as to what the writing wood (ouch!) contain.

If you made it this far, does having English mistakes like that make really make for better reading?

View on HN

I, personally, like mistakes in writing (as with in painting or singing) - I feel that it gives the art an additional depth, context, detail and comparison with author earlier/later works, other authors.

I believe that art function is to communicate - we create art, type letters, paint graffiti, verbal-vomit in online game PvP match to make a connection with other people.

So the mistakes are only adding to the art: "cooking this is difficult, and everyone do mistakes, but it's made with love and intuition, not blind recipe". Well, I can continue with examples of kissing but I guess I am repeating myself, haha.

I believe that being perfect is not human, and life doesn't have to be perfect. Getting better is great! But so is making mistakes.

(Or, dunno, maybe I have more to learn and I will some day think in a different way.)

Here it is cleaned up by ChatGPT:

"Really? Does having flaws actually make for better reading?

Okay, I’ll admit—that hurt to write (as did that last sentence), but writing isn’t furniture. Aside from a few tells I haven’t kept pace with (like the overuse of the word “delve”), the problem with trying to judge quality based on LLM-generated content is this: you can’t always tell whether the operator spent three minutes copying and pasting the whole thing (unless they accidentally leave in the prompts—which has happened and is a dead giveaway that no one even skimmed it), or if they took the time to thoughtfully consider the questions ChatGPT asked about what the writing should contain.

If you’ve made it this far: do mistakes like these really make for better reading?"

And I'm going to have to say: yes, I enjoyed reading your weird paragraph more than the ChatGPT sanitized version of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com