Why not let your audience decide what it wants to read?
I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.
It's my job to read HN posts and comments all day, every day, and these days that means spending a lot of time evaluating whether a post seems LLM-generated. In this case the post seems LLM-generated or heavily LLM-edited.
We have been asking the community not to publicly call out posts for being LLM-generated, for the reasons I explained in the latest edit of the comment you replied to. But if we're going to ask the community that, we also need to ask submitters to not post obviously-LLM-influenced articles. We've been asking that ever since LLMs became commonplace.
> I say this as a long time HN reader, who feels like the community has become grumpier over the years. Which I feel like is a shame. But maybe that's just me.
We've recently added this line to the guidelines: Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
HN has become grumpier, and we don't like that. But a lot of it is in reaction to the HN audience being disappointed at a lot of what modern tech companies are serving up, both in terms of products and content, and it doesn't work for us to tell them they're wrong to feel that way. We can try, but we can't force anyone to feel differently. It's just as much up to product creators and content creators to keep working to raise the standards of what they offer the audience.
That's false. The overwhelming sentiment of the community is that HN should be free of LLM-generated content or content that has obvious AI fingerprints. Sometimes people don't immediately realize that an article or comment has a heavy LLM influence, but once they realize it does, they expect us to act (this is especially true if they didn't realize it initially, as they feel deceived). This is clear from the comments and emails we get about this topic.
If you can publish a new version of the post that is human-authored, we'd happily re-up it.
> That's false. The overwhelming sentiment of the community is that HN should be free of LLM-generated content or content that has obvious AI fingerprints.
Yeah it is indeed, and for good reason: why would I spend time reading something the author didn't spend time thinking through and writing?
It's not that people don't like Postgres articles (otherwise, the upvotes would be much lower), but once you read a bit of the article, the LLM stench it gives off is characteristic. You know: Standard. LLM. Style. It's tiresome. Irksome. Off-putting.
What I'm wondering is, if LLMs are trained on "our" (in the wider sense of the word) writing style, and spew it back at us, what data set was it that overused this superficial emphatic style to such a degree, that it's now overwhelmingly the bog-standard generative output style?
Feels like a net negative for the HN community.