Comment by throw234678 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw234678 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This post is written with its intellectual fly open. I'm not sure whether it was partly AI-generated, or whether the author has spent so much time ingesting AI-generated content that the tells have rubbed off, but this article has:

- Strange paragraph-lists with bolded first words. e.g. "The Cash Flow Mystery"

- The 'It's not just X; it's Y' meme: "Buying Groq wouldn't just [...], it could give them a chip that is actually [...]. It’s a supply chain hedge."

Tells like:

- "My personal read? NVIDIA is [...]"

- "[...]. Now I'm looking at Groq, [...]"

However, even if these parts were AI generated, it's simultaneously riddled with typos and weird phrases:

- "it looks like they are squeezing each other [sic] balls."

- Stylization of OpenAI as 'Openai'.

Not sure what to make of this low-quality prose.

Even if the conclusion is broadly correct, that doesn't mean the reasoning used to get there is consistent.

I do, at least, appreciate that the author was honest up-front with respect to use of Gemini and other AI tools.

Final grade: D+.

It does amuse me when you have great, clean writing in some parts of a post, but then you have a sentence like

> As we head into 2026, when looking at Nvidia, openai and Oracle dynamics, it looks like they are squeezing each other balls.

Yeah I don't think there's a snowball's chance in heck that an LLM wrote that one, lol. My best guess is that the author combed over some of their prose with an LLM, but not all.

On the contrary, recently I encountered many cases where ChatGPT randomly switched to a very familiar style for a few sentences. It has a strong Reddit vibe when it does it, which I guess is not surprising.

I've seen this happen when AI is asked to spot fix a single sentence in the middle of an essay and it fails to maintain the style of the rest of the writing.

It usually doesn’t introduce grammatical mistakes at the same time though.

> Even if the conclusion is broadly correct, that doesn't mean the reasoning used to get there is consistent.

This is the conclusion of a reply that focused entirely on critiquing OP's style/AI use instead of their reasoning? Ironic.

Poe's Law strikes again!

If someone generates a ten thousand word slop essay with AI, do I have a moral obligation to critique its reasoning step by step instead of merely pointing out its origin?

If I do, it just so happens I have a ten thousand word rebuttal for you…

If someone generates a massive essay with AI, you don't have a moral obligation to do anything.

If you want to argue that the reasoning in the essay is incorrect, I do expect you to refute the reasoning instead of merely attacking the source.

In other post: https://philippeoger.com/pages/why-googles-tpu-could-beat-nv... in the paragraph: "What This Means for the Future NVIDIA is not standing still; its Q3 Fiscal 2026 earnings were a record \$57.0 billion in revenue, with Data Center revenue hitting \$51.2 billion. But the growing adoption of TPUs introduces a long-term risk to NVIDIA's core business model." they write about 2026 as if it already was. Could be a human typo or AI mistake.

Nvidia's (fiscal) Q3 2026 financial statements have been released, and are what this is all about. Fiscal years may be correlated with calendar years, but sometimes (as in this case) the correlation is rather elastic.

Companies' fiscal years do not necessarily align with the calendar year. Nvidia has indeeded just reported its FY2026 Q3 results.

You might want to get your facts right first when flinging accusations. Like, this fact is trivial to check! Why didn't you?

(Not an endorsement of either of the articles.)

that comment was written by AI

Is this the new form of ad-hominem? ad-AI?

It's the perfect insult because you can't even refute it right now. Anyone can just claim anything is AI slop and then that's that!

A lot of it is AI slop, but still.

ai-hominem

Ad machinam. “To the machine”.

ad machina

Why use a throwaway account if posting an honest critique?

1. I haven't commented on HN in a while and didn't want to dig up my password. Throwaway accounts are a tradition.

2. I don't want people to see my disparagement of the quality of prose in this article as indication of personal agreement or disagreement with any of the points in the article. I have no horse in this race. I just want to read high-quality material. I love HN, but I'm not sure how much longer HN will be a place I can frequent in this respect. Have the hills not eroded? What of childlike curiosity?

3. My comment is nothing special. Others also point out portions of this article may be AI generated. People can verify the contents of my comment independently and come to their own conclusions. It does not require that I lean on implied authority of some form.

I read a lot, it's basically all I do. I wish writers maintained the contract of spending at least as much energy writing out ideas as they expect their audience to expend while reading them.

I will now log out of this account and lose the password. I hope this was helpful. I intend no malice; I'm sure the author of this piece is a kind person and fun to hang out with. I hope they take this feedback the right way.

The problems with #2 and #3 are they are equally, if not more, valuable points to those wishing to hide their identity for nefarious reasons instead. I.e. that nameless "just makes you think, doesn't it" kind of farming. Identity (as in an account history) provides not only a community here, but easily rules out a lot of malicious wordsmithing concerns. Not that I place any of that on you in this case, just the general use of throwaways as perhaps not as net-good for the site as advertised above.

Nothing wrong with #1 on its own of course, but if we're talking about what we'd like to see here then I'd lean more towards the value in discussions with individuals in the community than the value in the prose of the articles/comments.

your comment is guideline breaking :)

Most are once it goes meta :D.

On that note, if anyone ever suspects a certain account/comment set as actually being nefarious, the note to reach out to hn@ycombinator.com in the guidelines is no lip service - they really do look right into it and get back to you (often with speedy action about it too). It's by far the best action you can take to keep the community feeling in the comments when you think it's actually occuring!

>I love HN, but I'm not sure how much longer HN will be a place I can frequent in this respect. Have the hills not eroded? What of childlike curiosity?

Culture shifts, even If you want to pretend you're beyond trends. I know HN wants to say "we're not Reddit" but cultural osmosis from Reddit and the internet at large will change how you interact even here.

That said:

>I wish writers maintained the contract of spending at least as much energy writing out ideas as they expect their audience to expend while reading them.

Maybe they did. Thing is that it's rare to be a skilled orator and a highly technical person (AKA the audience here). I could spend 20 hours writing this piece (after researching) and it'd be worse than someone who spent 2 hours writing it up but basically write full time. Don't let aptitude be confused with effort.

I felt the same, but then I read the full comment and thought: "Damn, this is good analysis!" I will say this: I highly encourage this person to get a "regular" account, as it sounds like they will have many interesting thoughts to post here.

avoiding vindictiveness perhaps

I'm also unsure why they took a sudden tangent from the topic at hand to suggesting Oracle should buy groq. It's like two separate half-baked blog posts merged into one with no real segue or conclusion as to why that sudden hard-left was relevant or meaningful.

I think you're looking too deeply at this. It's generally well written. I feel like you could take almost any sentence and say "look like AI" if you squint hard enough.

Regardless of it is was fully or partially written by AI, do you agree with the main points? Do you disagree?

I am laughing really hard. That first sentence of "Final Thoughts" is amazing.

the inconsistent capitalization, the odd punctuation, and the grammar mistakes. Love it.

I want this article to stay on the front page because it is hilarious.

I pasted two paragraphs in GPTZero and got the following results: 19% AI, 65% mix of human and AI and remaining 16% human. As I wasn't logged in, I did not get other details.

Is it possible the writer's first language is not English? ... and they used LLMs to help them with a few paragraphs?

Fair enough, but they should include a disclaimer. I wouldn't have an issue with it if they included a note about it.

Deep dive this is not, and it certainly wasn't worthy of being upvoted on hn..

HN is full of know-little blogspam, although rarely does it get top top like this one did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com