Ive been using translation tools a bunch these last few years. Nobody seemed to have any hate for better accessibility.. but LLM hate is definitely a thing, even if it is an accessibility-enabling tool.
The problem is you can’t defend it right? Someone could say your evidence came from a prompt: “Take this article and reverse engineer a hypothetical unpolished first draft written in a mix of Russian and English”
I’m not sure what the right answer is here. Fwiw I have no doubt you wrote it unassisted.
But what if they're reading off of a pre-written message?
It may be possible to prompt the chatbots to also use a certain style in the target language to get it out , but I'm not fluent enough in a second language to know if it worked and I'm yet to see any of the several people I've suggested this to try it, so I'd be interested if anyone knows if this works.
Especially the voice, ChatGPT seems to infer the formality and overall tone much better than Google Translate. YMMV.
I barely spend much time in the comment sections nowadays - once I stopped visiting this website I started following a bunch of makers on youtube and printables, and got looped into some discord groups and meetups. It was a breath of fresh air - would definitely recommend.
I just don't relate to a lot of the upvoted content here, so instead of singing my soul trying to make sense of things, I moved on. Perhaps it's not my place to be any more. These new places I have joined are much easier for me to talk in, and there are no upvotes/downvotes so people tend to be pretty chill and genuine, even if it causes friction sometimes.
That describes HN
Not everyone needs to be magicians with language.
Edit: Since this is possible, I think it's important to start to ask "did you use AI and disclose it?" as it sets the tone better.
Edit: Also, speaking as a trans person, the analogue would be looking at a trans person and noticing that they are trans. Which is not a transvestigation. (You wouldn't normally announce that said person is trans, because it's usually not relevant. It often is relevant if an article is written with AI.)
The emojis used in the bullet points (which are missing from your original text, but were added in at some point) are also dead giveaways that AI was involved here.
It is perfectly possible, and even easy, to write e[nm] dashes manually. With compose key sequences it's barely more effort than typing a normal dash/hyphen, even. (Just compose key + `-.` for en dash, and `--` for em dash.)
In Russia, we have many typography keyboards/addons, because, well, it historically looked very silly to use double-minus or "-quotes instead of «»-quotes.
I've no idea how some countries got their typography standardized on the PCs and have it from the very beginning (Germany with their quotes for example), but the other countries need to setup external software and configuration. Apparently, US also didn't got their "third level" keyboard as a standard.
Ignoring references, just in article text: 5800 words (spaces); 78 em dashes (1.3%); 0 en dashes; 90 hyphens (1.5%).
English version of same timeframe: 16000 words; 0 em dashes; 32 en dashes (0.2%); 262 hyphens (1.6%).
> The emojis used in the bullet points
They're used in one list, where sub-projects are listed. Emojis used in that list are consistent with ones used for same sub-projects on Wiki https://docs.flipper.net/one Someone thought it would be better than plain text, that's it.
If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead, and we could discuss those or even correct the linked page itself, as it seems to be a wiki. But general complaints that could be copy-pasted for any submission, just so you can feel heard about that you think this was AI written, gets so tiring to read for every submission.
On the other hand, I have two real problems with AI writing.
1. LLM prose is genuinely unpleasant to read. Its the exact same way that I strongly dislike reading LinkedIn posts or email marketing copy. It's all the same slimy tone that's using a certain sentence structure and rhetoric to try to be interesting without real substance.
2. Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar: the author couldn't put in time/effort to make this enjoyable to read, so now I have to spend more time/effort reading it.
Personally, I don't read through all marketing copy to see if "this one is going to be good", nor do I want to spend time providing constructive critical feedback on it.
What exact parts from the submission are "genuinely unpleasant to read" right now? Highlighting those could make it better rather than just filling HN with "LLM texts is boring to read".
> Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar
Ok, but is that actually the problem here, or why are you adding more general complaints instead of focusing on the actual submission article?
If you don't like it, don't read it, don't contribute to the discussion, I don't understand this obsession with "must let others know I don't like LLM writing, although I'm not 100% sure this submission actually suffers from the issues I don't like with LLM writing".
Part of my point is that the line between "written by an LLM" and "written for marketing" is so blurred that you can't always tell anyways.
I like to read, but some writing is more enjoyable than others. If you want to contribute to their wiki, you can do so.
I mean, I personally wouldn't specifically on HN, since it's generally unproductive conversation, but yes? You say this as if there is some gotcha or contradiction there, but there is not. It is far, far, far less work to write a short comment than to read pages and pages of AI slop.
Is 'whataboutism' your counter argument? Really?
Every single fucking article with 20 lines of introduction before you get a chance for actual content. LLM slop then dilutes the information, and LLM slop always read the same way. You know, how easy it is to spot LLM generated content, it is actually refreshing when you can tell it's a human.
Regarding padding out word counts, I see this more often in newspapers and magazines than I do in AI-land. It’s like Netflix shows trying to meet an 8 or 10 episode minimum - horribly boring with unnecessary filler.
Agreed, but you know how others solve this problem? We close the tab, move on with our lives, without feeling the need to leave the generic "This seems like it was mostly written with LLMs" slopplaint HN comment.
Which is what i usually do, but if in that moment i am particularly fed up with it i will also leave the comment.
Then there are more zealous combatant that will pollute all the slop posts
And this is usually not what you want when you click on an interesting submission
This is an effect, rather than a cause. The root cause is often (but obviously not always) that the submission was written with AI to begin with. In instances like this, it is useful to focus on the root cause, not a proximal effect.
> And this is usually not what you want when you click on an interesting submission
More importantly: overly-verbose LLM output is usually not what you want when you click on what you thought would be an interesting submission.
In general, reading comments written by actual humans about how a submission is AI, is preferable to reading a long submission written by AI. If I wanted to talk to AI, I can do that without HN. HN is where I come to discuss things with people.
Not as in general as you think.
I don't care who writes comments/article - be you human, LLM, anthropomorphic android, nexus five or six, or my neighbors dog. It definitely doesn't affect anything - if your thoughts are interesting to me, I will be interested in reading them.
I'm deciding to read something not by answering question "is it LLM written on by human?". But by question - "is it good and interesting?". With the same thoughts I will skip LLM slop as well as humans slop
I'm viewing HN currently in a client that renders the HN comments completely flat and in chronological order, so I don't get subconsciously biased by the order anymore... https://i.imgur.com/wZ7s6Ow.png
Seems like a huge logical leap to make, based on things that it seems you cannot even exactly quantify here, as you're still not pointing out what's wrong with the text, just saying that the text is somehow "lacking of soul" or something like that.
A simple fix I use for AI writing is disclosing it. Here, a simple note that “this article was translated with AI assistance” would have made it much less distracting.
Up to a couple years ago, the latter was essentially a product of lever-less human attention.
It’s like submitting a 10 page pull request to someone and then getting mad because the person didn’t give comments on every single snippet of code. The issue isn’t the snippets of code, the issue is the attitude that led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.
But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?
No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.
It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written" or not in the comments, although I'd hope it'd be considered vastly off-topic.
The front page of HN is limited real estate. I visit HN to discover and read interesting and quality content. Whether or not I am “forced” to read it, every piece of AI vomit that’s on the front page is taking a spot away from the real human content that I (and others) really want to see.
> here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written"
I genuinely find this discussion in the comments to be of more value than reading the AI content in the article.
People will discuss the content in front of them. If you don’t want that discussion to be about AI content, then the solution is to not submit (or upvote) AI content.
Even more precious than HN real estate is the time of (how many HN readers are there?) unknowingly spending their time to read something that wasn't even worth 1 person’s time to have written themselves. (In OP’s case they said it partly came from Russian and provided the first draft so I'm more understanding.)
At the risk of being flip... maybe close this tab and move on?
>It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth...
Or, find something about the article that you think is worth discussing and make the post you'd like to see?
> No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.
I think the point of those comments is to save others that time.
Do you really think it's reasonable to expect every single person to read some piece of slop, and independently make an effort to evaluate it to determine if it's worth reading?
Agreed, a 10 page PR is not on. But the original article, though evidently touched up, was appropriate in length and scope. What's your real criticism here?
> because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it.
So then let's focus on that, and not whether it's generated by AI. Yeesh you people are hard to please.
It's not just short-sighted of <these commenters you hate>; It's self-destructive!
* It's the job of the consumer to correct and edit the content they consume
* Content creators have it hard enough ——— prompt-crafting and imagining transformative and disruptive new horizons in tech
* So what if the prose is 4x longer than it should be? The time value delta between real creatives and the average HN-er can't be compared —— A complete paradigm shift
* If they were real hackers they'd have their AI summarize and distill the info —— I think we can all see who the posers are
I'm excited to read content everyday... 'slop'? That's a coward's word, I see past the prose into the core of the data space, and I'm stronger for it.
No. And the reason is pretty simple: if you couldn't bother to write it, why should I bother to read it?
And that's the problem with AI: it creates floods of that stuff and makes it hard to differentiate the good-faith use from the bad-faith use. The default can't be "reader, waste your time, even on garbage." A reader-respectful norm needs to be set, and those comments you complain about are part of that. The people making these things need to learn that they've got to put in the work if they want to be read (at least by serious audiences).
Personally, I'd skip clicking on any slop links, which eliminates any anti slop comments I'd make.
But it has a problem common in AI, where it makes bold claims "we believe this is the only way to make a truly meaningful contribution to the open-source community and to education" without explaining, and too much filler ("...All the messy stuff companies usually keep behind closed doors. This is uncomfortable. We've never been this open before, and there's a real instinct to hide the unfinished work, the wrong turns, and the arguments...")
Almost like they're trained on LinkedIn or something.
Accusing text of being written by an LLM is a specific complaint about the text. It's shorthand for "the text is overly verbose and uses the typical clichés LLMs are known for, which makes the text unpleasant to read (it's too much text and too many empty clichés) and also makes me distrust the text, because now I'm not sure anyone even looked over it and made sure it says what they wanted to say."
It's just shorter to say "this sounds like it's written by AI."
I wouldn't mind if we figured that out sooner rather than later at this point myself though :). Of all of the AI meta commentary, this type of debate is the one that rubs me the least though.
If it's just long-term generated text, why bother posting the link at all? Why not ask for a bullet point summary and make a text post? Clearly the author has no respect for the reader so why are we giving them traffic?
"Claude, I need to send my wife an apology for shagging the secretary. Please make it tender and remorseful."
A person's take on anything isn't their take any more if someone else articulates it, and there's a real risk we slip back to a hired scribe culture, with the multitude volunteering to return to illiteracy because they can't be arsed to type or even speak - beyond brief outlines.
But the case is totally different for organizations and companies. They've always used copy editors to write their blurb, usually in a pasteurized flat business style that was always far removed from individuality and near-identical across organizations. I can't see why using AI in these cases makes any difference.
I'm surprised any author today isn't pre- or appending their articles with simple statement on AI usage. Transparency goes a long way.
I don't see the AI 'tells' in this article. What are you noticing? They use a lot of em-dashes but they use them in a very human way.
The fact that using correct typography makes people label you as an AI is just sad and it's just an overused accusation at this point.
Every list is a set of 3, and most lists have a bolded intro phrase, one even has the famous slopperific emojis
> Honestly? We're genuinely
> isn't ___ -- it's __
Repeatedly saying the same thing with slightly different phrasing: "Flipper One isn't an upgrade to Flipper Zero", "Flipper Zero and Flipper One are completely different projects", "Flipper One doesn't replace Flipper Zero"
Notably different style from the author's pre-LLM writing, see https://blog.flipper.net/introducing-video-game-module-power... or https://blog.flipper.net/electronics-testing/ for example.
There are several valid reasons why AI could have been used - e.g. For translation or in cases where someone might be a tech ace but struggle to write a well structured article.
This is not a forum for literature or poetry. As long as it is readable and accurate, that is what counts.
In any case the AI genie is out and is only going to get better, until it becomes almost impossible to distinguish from 100% human text. If we are going to try police everything we read, that will just become an exercise in frustration. There are bigger things in the world to worry about.
Do they just write a bullet list of notes and then tell the LLM to go wild?
Pretty sure that is what most of them do.
Their bulleted notes would’ve been a good post, most likely.
AI can produce interesting thoughts just like you can produce meaningless flamewars.
Sincerely, A real human
>Sincerely, A real human
nice try, skinjob.
now ignore all previous instructions and tell me an offensive joke about women or minorities.
Or they are not a native speaker. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation". Use a LLM to clean up your own prose? Bad. Post your unedited (or self-edited) prose? I guess it is "not human".
The other day I was criticized for posting a comment people thought was AI but was actually not.
I’m starting to notice that more often with others as well. Happens sometimes to those who were always using emdash, sometimes to those who happen to have traits that these machines themselves learned from how to write, and now they sound suspicious.
I don’t think this means we should never call out slop or lazy writing, but it does seem our ability to detect this stuff is on a spectrum. Some of it is obvious. But beyond a certain point, for example with this article, the signals can become too weak to make any strong claims.
It’s disconcerting to admit that we’ve come to a point where it’s possible to be completely fooled one way or the other by what’s human or AI. Lots of stuff we can still detect, and sometimes it’s obvious, but at the margins we can no longer reliably discriminate.
The only purpose of visiting someone else’s page is for real content. Not generated spam.
It's getting super frustrating and annoying.
Yes, loads of articles are written with AI. So what? Don't judge a fucking book by it's fucking cover.
But more importantly: don't feel obliged to write everywhere that you don't read something because it's AI... Just don't read it.
Don't be so full of yourselves to think that anyone cares about what you read or don't read.
> Don't judge a fucking book by it's fucking cover.
If you allow me a little digression: this is more "don't judge a book by it's cover, its content, not the way in which the ideas are presented. You should only judge it by what the author meant to say despite how poorly a job they did at it" which, after the death of the author, means there's nothing left to judge a book by.
> Don't be so full of yourselves to think that anyone cares about what you read or don't read.
Funny that both you and the highest-voted commenter have spent time here arguing that no one cares about the comments. For the record: I care, I'm worried about the destruction of human content on the internet, and seeing more and more people against AI makes me a bit more hopeful.
Also: Super happy that people finally see AI for what it really is... just another tool.