Hacker News Reader

Comment by stavros | Hacker News Reader

Am I weird for not wanting to read Claude-generated text any more? I tried to figure out what this app is about, but all the Claude verbal tics in the text turned me off and I stopped.

View on HN

I’m on the same boat. I get why people do it. Writing prose is significantly slower than consuming it, but there’s still a part of me that thinks “if you didn’t think writing was a good use of your time, why would reading this content be a use of mine”. I don’t mind AI-assisted writing but it’s hard to know to how much human editing was involved when the text shows so many AI tells. Almost by definition, AI writing is average it’s hard to justify spending the time when there’s so much content out there.

“You didn’t write it, why should I read it?”

Seems like a perfectly reasonable stance.

> Division is free, multiplication is prediction

I'm so tired

As someone who has never used LLMs to write text, so am not familiar with the specific stylistic choices that any particular LLM likes, nothing in there seemed out of the ordinary for decent human writing.

Are you sure what caused you problems was LLM style rather than all the specialized music terminology?

I'm very sure, even the first two paragraphs reek of LLM. It's the style, not the content.

My eyes glaze over pretty much immediately and I just close the tab no matter how interesting the subject of the writing sounded like it was going to be.

Am I weird for not wanting to see this same discussion and variations of it in most every thread including in ones that it has no place? I don't see it having any effect on the trend which only seems to be increasing, but I do see an effect on the quality of the discussion.

I'll keep saying it until people understand how immediately recognisable and offputting stock LLM writing is.

I do agree with the sibling commenters, if writing this wasn't a good enough use of your time, why would reading it be a good use of mine? Just paste me the bullet points and I'll read those.

>Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

>Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

It is fine if you don't like LLM writing but it is not particularly interesting, why should I care? why would I want to read the same sentiments over an over? What use is this knowledge to me or anyone else? Your blog is a more suitable place for such things.

Not once did this pop on my radar as AI-generated. And if it is that’s fine, because it reads extremely clear and coherent to me.

Larger point: I am so sick of HN comment sections filling up with obligatory comments speculating about whether a post is AI-written.

At this point I don’t care. People now write with AI. If the writing is deficient in some way, then comment on that. At least that way the “writer” can steer the writing towards greater coherence.

It's easy to tell imo in part because of how terse the sentences are:

`Obvious in hindsight.`

`The clock never jumps.`

`No lookahead, no undo.`

`A real kick pattern is not a clock.`

>Larger point: I am so sick of HN comment sections filling up with obligatory comments speculating about whether a post is AI-written.

Gotta disagree wholeheartedly with that - using AI to write for you is really fucking annoying as a reader. It screams to me that the "author" feels the reader's time is worthless, and it homogenizes language in a way that is troubling to say the least.

If someone keeps serving feces, the right response isn't to complain about them complaining about having to eat crap.

It’s definitely got AI tells, and I understand the objection - it’s hard to tell the difference between slop (written without review or direction, meant to fill space or present a simulacra of information) and actual informational content. With this article, it was clear that the author wanted to describe what problems they had and how they overcame those problems, and it was concise and I could tell it was reviewed so the content seemed trustworthy to me. I understand that some people have pretty high standards - if you don’t have the time to type out all of the code yourself one character at a time, then write stylish, interesting prose about it one letter at a time, if all you want to do is solve interesting problems and communicate how you solved them, you should shut up until you get good. Me, I am also imperfect and lazy, so I don’t care to demand style points or demonstrations of perspicacity from others.

Thanks for posting this, OP, I thought it was interesting.

As a career musician with a heavy interest in electronic music and DSP, hearing the author work through designing the algorithm is interesting to me. They make several good points along the way of how a band relates to the implicit tempo of a performance when the drummer goes "off road" with a flashy fill or a hemiola. I'd never heard it articulated in this way, but it makes sense.

For that reason I like that the author is talking through their trial-and-error process in this way.

I understand the desire to have well-crafted writing, but this example shows sufficient care (for me) and doesn't throw up any red flags and it relates it's content well. It's not Nabokov, you know?

I also say this as someone who has never considered LLM-augmented writing, because I enjoy the process of articulating my thoughts and the creativity that comes with it.

It has become an even more pernicious form of the old grammar nazi.

At least the grammar nazi was performing a type of service.

The LLM nazi is adding absolutely nothing.

This style gets an instant ignore from me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com