How utterly pointless.
AI slop posing as “commentary” on the AI crisis.
AI slop posing as “commentary” on the AI crisis.
What would make it less pointless in your opinion?
> A profession does not need to be eliminated to be mourned. It is enough for its center to fall out, leaving the people who built careers in that center with credentials that no longer map to a stable role. When AI threatens the work, it threatens the self, which is why the response looks less like ordinary job-loss fear and more like a form of bereavement.
I'm certain that section was mostly constructed by an LLM. It reads well, but when you actually focus on what it's saying there's nothing there.
I was not enlightened by reading that. No human sat thinking deeply about the situation, constructed their own mental model of what was happening, then put effort into transferring that mental model into my brain so I could be similarly enlightened. They had Claude (probably) express a conclusion that was attached to nothing more than what would statistically sound "deep".
Hacker News is surprisingly tolerant of slop these days. I expect to be downvoted for this, because comments highlighting slop are usually downvoted. So it goes.
That said, slop is going to be a massive, natural, and utterly predictable consequence of AI. I think if you are generally AI positive then you definitely don't get to complain about slop.
I'm up to 40 posts on my blog tagged "slop" now: https://simonwillison.net/tags/slop/
I consider covering AI misuse as part of my "beat" that I write about - there are so many bad ways to apply this stuff, and shining a light on those and explaining why they're bad seems like an important thing to spend time on.
I don't currently share that belief. I expect AI misuse to be the overwhelming majority of AI usage so personally I'm pretty much against it outright.
I know that's a losing battle though. Your approach is probably the more productive way forward.
However, to your point directly: Simon has a pretty valid argument. There’s a lot of slop posted on jere these days.
Personally I’m reading far less stuff from HN than I used to. That’s a shame because up unto the past six months or so I’ve found it a great place to expand my reading.
Now I increasingly click something open, realise it’s more AI slop and close it.
What I don’t understand is why these people do not realise how utterly, unmistakably, glaringly obvious their awful AI crap is.
I recently said elsewhere on here: I partly work with words. I find AI-“authored” content absolutely and unmistakably obvious.
The fact that people publish crap like this shows that they don’t know what good writing is, or what good expression of ideas is. Because if they did they would proof what their AI had written and realise how awful it is.
And that by extension means that the content is almost certainly worthless, because whoever prompted it read it and said “this is fine! I’m happy to publish it under my own byline!”
And in reality it just makes them look idiotic. No discrimination. No original thought.
So I don’t think my comment, - or Simon’s comment - was moaning about “Things These Days”.
It was a point about the erosion of the community this creates.
And if nothing else that erosion is silly arguments about the value - or otherwise - of AI slop.
I don't intentionally use LLMs for anything, but perhaps I should have run my post through one to optimise for clarity.
But, too late: my delete rights have expired. We're stuck with my comment forever now. May this be a lesson to everybody involved.
I'm meta-complaining if you like, but it's a point that I'll stand by.