[flagged]
@dang these complaints about AI are more tedious than any other complaints about the website. Might be time to add something to the "guidelines".
> Here’s what surprised me: the practices that made my exit smooth weren’t “exit strategies.” They were professional habits I should have built years earlier—habits that made work better even when I was staying.
“It’s not x—it’s y.”, the dashes, the q&a style text from the parent comment, and overall cadence were too hard to look past.
So for a counterpoint about the complaints being tedious, I’d say they are nice to preempt the realization that I’m wasting time reading ai output.
A tech doc writer once mentioned how she'd been reading Hunter S. Thompson, and that it was immediately bleeding into her technical writing.
So I tried reading some HST myself, and... some open source code documentation immediately got a little punchy.
> So for a counterpoint about the complaints being tedious, I’d say they are nice to preempt the realization that I’m wasting time reading ai output.
Good point. And if it's actually genuine original text from someone whose style was merely tainted by reading lots of "AI" slop, I guess that might be a reason to prefer reading someone who has a healthier intellectual diet.
That is honestly incredible and actionable advice.
Can’t wait to sprinkle a taste of the eldritch in my comments after reading some Lovecraft.
It also leads to slop spam content. Writing it yourself is a form of anti-spam. I think tools like grammarly help strike a balance between 'AI slop machine' and 'help with my writing'.
And because they are so low effort, it feels like putting links to a google search essentially. Higher noise, lower signal.
I found Grammerly to be often incorrect, but it's been years since I tried it. I use LanguageTool instead, simply to catch typos.
If P is the probability that a text containing these patterns was generated by an LLM, then yes, P > 0, but readers who are (understandably) tired of generated comments are overestimating P.
* Edit: I see now that the GP comment already said this.
I posted this in December 2022 because it was already clear we were headed this way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950747
I had to learn the difference between hyphen, en-dash, and em-dash when typesetting scientific papers and theses in LaTeX, and after that it just doesn’t feel right to not use them "properly".
and I'm not an LLM (that I can tell so far).