[flagged]
Which seems like a pretty good argument to me, given the amount of slip out there and how increasingly performative these pieces are.
It is, it's disrespectful of the reader. Like others have said time and again across HN: why should I spend my time reading an article the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing?
> Not to mention the fact that you seem to be unaware of the fact that it's theoretically impossible to discern human writing from LLM writing unless there is an explicit signature in the writing.
Huh? No it's not lol
The same reasons you might spend your cycles running code the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing.
Either the stuff is worth reading, or it's not worth reading. It really has nothing to do with how much effort it took the human, or entity, to get it on paper.
Gold that lands in my pocket is just as good as, or better than, gold I have to dig out of the ground.
The author would be better served posting their prompt instead of the cruft of shit the software builds up around it to pad out the length.
Why would that serve the author?
What's interesting is your input: the weights that you applied to the software to make it generate the text it did. When the author gives us an article generated by an LLM, we have to sift for the input – what the author actually wanted to say before the LLM built up the cruft around it – to find the gold.
That's no reason to be anti-ai-generated-code-or-blog-post.
Good quality work is rarely the first draft.
Most humans will write better with AI, and explain the "gold" of their ideas better. You currently have to sift through their messy rendition of their own native language, or worse, non-native speakers trying to convey thoughts.
Of course, mostly those folks don't write blogs.
Anyway, you didn't explain how it serves the author, you explained how it serves the reader.
The game can have every detail tended to by a game designer, while the clanker builds it out.
https://arxiv.org/html/2512.05311v1
It’s not mathematically possible to reliably discern human writing from llm writing.
> It is, it's disrespectful of the reader. Like others have said time and again across HN: why should I spend my time reading an article the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing?
You are entitled to your opinion. As for me, I focus on the actual content and merits of the writing.
Wish I could use emojis on HN because this definitely warrants the nerd emoji. Bud, humans aren't machines. It might not be "mathematically possible" for an algorithm to discern the difference, but a human can absolutely detect the uncanny valley that is LLM writing.
> You are entitled to your opinion. As for me, I focus on the actual content and merits of the writing.
You're entitled to waste your time if it pleases you.
I’d shave off my head if you or any other human can reliably discern LLM vs human in a proper controlled test.