Hacker News Reader

Your argument is basically ad hominem. Ideas should be evaluated on merit.

The "writing part" is not neatly separable from the "ideas part," much as AI-writing defenders would like to pretend so.

My argument is that randomly accusing something of being AI and pretending that it's bad merely because you think it's AI, is not good/good faith. Whether you think some writing is AI or not is besides the point. If the writing sucks, explain why. Not everyone shares your position that if something is written by AI it's automatically bad.

And for the record, you can have a lengthy conversation with an AI to communicate your ideas and then use the AI to draft the message. It'll have AI tells in it, but so what?

"experiment hate exempt sentence electronics club suggest perforate communist surround eagle X-ray consensus forecast cancel beam knowledge operation workshop recording earthwax bland"

"That's literally just the output from a random word picker."

"Don't engage with the mechanism of production! Engage with the content! If it's bad, explain how it's bad! Not everyone believes the output of a random word picker is automatically bad!"

How facetious. Are you really comparing LLMs to random word picker? What a poor counterargument.

LLMs are literally random word pickers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com