If your text hasn't undergone that process, it's still sloppy thinking.
after seeing these comments, i just had to see for myself... and i couldn't even make it through the first section of the article.
> On HN we should try to get primary sources for this sort of thing.
+10000
I dont have an llm-radar like you but I felt some anxiety reading through it. Cant explain why but the logic was not linear and this strained me as a reader. It didnt have the obvious llm-isms i see on youtube videos "not this but that". My natural instinct is to make sense of what I read, and if presented with a word-salad, it strains me. What are the empty LLMisms so my radar can be calibrated ? These are some giveaways I could spot.
> The timeline is genuinely absurd
> The timeline sequence description (Feb/March/April) is abstract and does not depict specifics reflecting human understanding.
So I believe the author has exposure to the issue and interest in understanding it, that’s more than AI alone has got.
The thing that concerns me is that even at a site like HN, where a lot of people are very familiar with LLMs, it seems to be passing.
I hate to think this will become the norm but it's not the first HN linked post that's gotten a lot of earnest engagement despite being AI generated (or partly AI generated).
I'm very comfortable with AI generated code, if the humans involved are doing due diligence, but I really dislike the idea of LLM generated prose taking over more and more of the front page.
And yes, I agree with you: it's sad seeing LLM-generated slop taking over the front page. I (possibly naively) hope that this trend starts reversing itself sometime soon, as HN is a valuable resource for me to discover new and fascinating things.