Hacker News Reader

Comment by teddyh | Hacker News Reader

> OK, but according to ChatGPT

Shut up.

If that’s the best argument you have, then you’ve got nothing.

I, like most people, don’t come here to see AI slop opinions. We can get that approximately everywhere else. We don’t need HN to be filled with AI confabulations, and if it were to happen, we would leave.

View on HN

Did you not slide your eyes immediately to the right to see (so correct me if the AI is wrong)?

It doesn't need to be wrong for it to be incredibly rude to just regurgitate ChatGPT output. That's not having a discussion, that's being too lazy to participate but posting anyway.

This is not advancing a novel argument or creating of a new piece of content, this is about a factual claim about the world. How is it different from According to Google or According to Wikipedia or According to this scientific paper? It's saying this information is 3rd party sourced and I'm open to being corrected if you can point out the flaws in this way of gathering facts from the world.

The volume of LLM output is effectively infinite. Therefore, it is not worth my time or effort reading a single syllable of it. I will not read (nor correct) LLM output, since if I did, I would quickly be doing nothing else with my life. And since LLM output is infinite, but I am finite, my efforts would still be completely without results, comparatively speaking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com