Imported some contacts, doing quick setup, first contact, can't scroll down to confirm/finish setting them up. I'm on the SE, which is a slightly smaller screen, sometimes apps seem to have trouble with it, I assume they're assuming a larger screen.
I’ll be working on fixing this :). Unfortunately I didn’t bother tested with the SE, only the 11 onwards, lesson learned.
So why then should we bother to interact with the product deliberately.
Around here most know how hard and time consuming it is to ship a production grade experience. AI helps a ton. it's not "wrong" per say, but it undeniably leaves an odor.
Please do not engage with this fraudulent clown-show of an app.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260305052854/https://poppy-con...
"No feed, no doomscrolling — just intention."
"Not your whole address book — just the ones you'd hate to lose touch with"
"You care deeply—you're just terrible at follow-through."
"You care deeply—your ADHD brain just doesn't..."
Well shit, that solves everything! What a revelation -_-
Low effort interactions just aren't worth it. IF it's not worth writing at least 3 sentences chances are I don't care - and won't ever care.
Like yeah it's cool to see what some guy I knew in high school is up to, but ultimately that connection ain't making my life better.
HN is an exception in the signal to noise ratio is far higher than a lot of other social media - though the bots are hitting it hard these days.
How do you know that the author is capable of communicating fluently in english?
What if it were the case the the author was so excited about sharing a project but didn't know how to properly explained it and so took the extra effort to learn how to get a piece of software to explain it for them?
Would that then satisfy your requirement that the human behind the project has done enough work to earn your interest?
AIs don't violate entropy, and can't create information from nothing. They can interpret, and expand, and maybe, just maybe, tease out meaning that a human would have missed. But the more sensitively they're tuned to pick up on small nuances, they more likely they're going to interpret a pattern that isn't there, and the more they're tuned to avoid over-interpretation, the more likely they are to miss something that is there, the same as how a human can aim to interpret something with high or low context.
The difference is, by filtering it through an AI, you're taking that capability out of other people's hands, you're (often intentionally) flattening and damaging signals people usually use to choose how to distribute their attention (often with the cry of "But it's not fair that people want to spend their attention on things that I'm not good at, I have to use AI to convince people to look at my work that they would prefer not to!!"), and when you do that without acknowledging the use of AI, it feels a lot like you don't care about any negative effects your actions have on the existing ecosystems of human creativity and communication, and you're going to get an appropriately hostile response.
Irrelevant; they can do the best they can and I'll do the best I can.
If the best they can do is have it ghost-written, then the best that I will do is not read it.
> What if it were the case the the author was so excited about sharing a project but didn't know how to properly explained it and so took the extra effort to learn how to get a piece of software to explain it for them?
That's not extra effort, that's less effort.
> Would that then satisfy your requirement that the human behind the project has done enough work to earn your interest?
Look, if someone isn't going to bother to write something, why would others bother to read it?
I'm just counting down the days until no one can actually tell how much AI was involved so we can get to discussing whether the thing is good or not.
It would be so much nicer if people didn't feel compelled to add the 32nd iteration of whining about the methodology used to produce the content.
I'd say I can't wait until the fad passes, but it's always something, isn't it?
I guess because anger/irritation/outrage are such popular sentiments people tend to resort to that kind of content because it makes them feel good to participate in trends. There's always going to be the group of people who seek popularity by aping whatever the latest fad is.
Terminally online people need to get over this weird aversion to anything generated w/ help of AI. Do you have similar misgivings, like "this guy obviously used auto correct", or "he's using speech to text, I'm not reading anything unless its hand-written"
Get over it. It's here, it's useful, judge the product on its merits. I get if you see spam email messages that are overly tailored and ignoring them because the person obv didn't do the work. But this dude created a free app that looks pretty cool, maybe he didn't want to spend another few hours to create a pretty standard boilerplate website with app information.
Sorry, no. It doesn’t do it better. It’s like chewing cardboard. All fluff, not a lot of actual well-presented information.
AI is also not a great communicator- it learned from people, which you said are not great.
There's loads of factors that may implicitly turn someone off using an app, and I think it's important to let the OP know a critical one.
Copy can signal that a real person spent time on the details and cared about the product. Auto-correct and speech-to-text still carry that idea.
Even boring corporate PR language communicates something. It says the company wants to project stability and predictability, which can be reassuring. Slightly awkward, unpolished copy also sends a signal. It suggests a person speaking directly off-the-cuff rather than polished corporate messaging, which some people prefer.
LLM-generated copy sends a signal too, and not always a good one. To me, it often suggests the author didn’t care enough to think carefully about the message - not even enough to edit something that came out of an LLM.
At that point it starts to feel like someone just prompted Claude to build a reminders app with no care or thought put into it, which I could do myself if I find this idea valuable at all and even personalize the hell out of it. Maybe that's an unfair first impression! But it's not a crazy one given how quickly the cost of code is approaching 0.
Why? You didn't spend real time consulting a dictionary or using penmanship, since writing is often slower than speaking. You didn't do your own memory management? Wow, guess you don't care about the details. Used a compiler? Wow dude, please spend the time to actually build the product the right way. These are all levels of abstraction, the idea is the idea. The LLM has no agency, it has no ideas, you give it your idea. It packages it out and communicates it effectively, which is respectful to the final user.
I don't owe you anything. Why am I wasting my time on this so you can feel somehow important. The copy is not the product. Its communication and should be done clearly and respectfully, and if an LLM facilitates with that, I would hope people use LLM for my sake.
> Even boring corporate PR language communicates something
Yes I want to communicate. I do so with the LLM. I might have a rant "stress privacy, go through the app and highlight the privacy features. Mention it's good for kids. Oh and also mention its local first (I would make this first actually),... " Whats the point of spending literally hours structuring, writing, re-writing etc. Communicate to the LLM, and use it to be respectful of your audience.
I think this is an illuminative statement from you, so I’m going to just explain that I (and many of the people responding to you likely) will vehemently disagree: The copy is an extremely important part of a product like this.
Unlikely we’ll see eye-to-eye on this which is fine, but I would encourage you to do some reflection on that. I’ll certainly be reflecting on what might’ve led to you your position as well.
Can't wait until people give up this lunacy.
It's exactly the same "back in my day" bullshit that's always existed.
What do you mean you typed this? If it isn't handwritten, I won't accept it. What do you mean you drove to work? Do you not have the dedication to walk? You can't be a good fit for this company if you're so lazy that you have to drive to work.
As someone who taught marketing for almost 2 decades, I've learned that if the copy does not bring in the people that the product wanted to help, then there might as well be no product.
I literally do not understand this sentiment. Do you not enjoy anything that takes time to do? Do you not enjoy putting time in for things that other people will look at?
> I know it'll write better copy than me
If this is the case I am desperately pleading with you to please read and write more. If you think the copy on this page is passable, let alone good, please read more.
Again, I'm not saying no one should write marketing copy, if that's your thing, go for it. Take your time, wordsmith. But for others they don't enjoy it or are not particularly good at it (i.e. English isn't someones first language). So let's be accepting and get over it.
> If this is the case I am desperately pleading with you to please read and write more.
Please stop moralizing.
The problem is that the generated "marketing copy" ends up being bland and ineffective (nobody "buys", so the copy fails at its single job) when using generalist LLM tools like eg. ChatGPT.
So in the end, you don't achieve the goal of "getting better copy" from it because neither version (neither the copy you'd have done naïvely without knowing anything about marketing, nor the LLM copy) converts anyone.