Hacker News Reader

Comment by alganet | Hacker News Reader

I decided to look at it more closely.

It is massive, lots of papers analyzed, but just the Abstract part of each.

One way you could look at it is: some authors used an LLM to create the abstract from the paper contents. "Hey, there's a lot of new books with AI covers"

One other way is: There could be a correlation between LLM usage in the abstract and LLM usage during the production or writing of the paper. "Hey, I wonder if this book with an AI cover also was written by an AI. It should be investigated"

View on HN

This reminds me of auto-generated got commit messages. I can't fathom that someone would go to the effort of authoring a PR,and then not bothering to describe what they did. Unless of course they didn't actually go through the effort of authoring the PR, and may not even be fully aware of what's in there. I've stopped giving thorough code reviews to coworkers who can't use code generation responsibility, and often times they haven't reviewed the code themselves. Heck, I've been giving my PRs self-reviews since long before AI.

As I mentioned, there are two ways of seeing it.

Maybe there was some kind of pressure for LLM usage in the Abstract section.

In certain points of my career, I have been pressure before to generate commits with specific rigid requirements.

Perhaps we should look into the kinds of pressures that would force or push someone to LLM usage. What do you think?

I don't get this take. If I work through a feature with an LLM and then task it with creating conventional atomic commits to persist the work then that's no different to generating any other documentation. Same for the PR description. Now, you want to make sure it's not slop, purple prose or has any emojis, but other than that commits and PR descriptions are an entirely valid automation target.

I will look down on your auto-generated commits though, and be more critical of your PR if you use them by choice. Just like I would be naturally more inquisitve about the writing origin for a book that has an auto-generated image in the cover.

Choose your analogy, the idea stays the same. There are two ways of seeing it, and it requires further investigation. Maybe, as I just suggested, read each book or review the entire PR.

It is definitely a reason to consider slowing down the usage of automation, or at least scrutinizing it more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com