I think I found a planet nobody knew existed. I used Claude Code to find it
reddit.com
reddit.com
> "We got vibe astronomy before GTA6"
Friend sent me this one, kinda glad people are learning what I learned with Claude 4.6… you can build anything at this point.
For example, I've had people thanking me for pointing out LLMish later in an article when it's not as obvious at the beginning. It saves the time of thinking the article is manually written when it'll later turn out to be AI instead.
Note that I don't necessarily have anything against AI in particular, but rather the chronic lack of information density typical of LLM-generated articles. Some articles that were LLM-assisted are still information-dense enough to keep me satisfied.
It's not AI tone, that's not a thing, it's just low quality text.
My brain can't help itself in looking for AI tells and gauging if writing sounds like AI or not.
Then once it latches onto the idea that the writing is probably AI, then it feels like half my brain is just reading the text looking for the AI smells.
Calling it "AI smells" like "code smells" might actually be what is going on in my brain, and I start code reviewing it at that level rather than reading it for what it does.
I really would prefer people not just post slop. I don't care if you use it to clean up your own writing, but don't just let it rip.
However, it is notable that the rules of this particular venue request one be charitable to your fellow forum goers, and thus the admonition that their preferred communication is "slop" is generally considered unwelcome.
Would that you had only been able to word your own communication is in proper vocabulary and grammar; alas, I must conclude that even as you reject modernity, you have embraced the "slop" of the past.
But to address your last sentence: OP explicitly admits to using AI in the Reddit comments, and apologizes for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wzw8zd/i_think_i.... If you are going to repeat this libel, at least have the decency to provide some sort of citation
good writing is not just replacing random words with entries from thesaurus.com, it's writing for your reader. that's one thing LLM-generated text is very bad at - frequently violates the show-don't-tell rule, it lacks any interiority by it's very nature, etc
if you don't practice writing yourself, you don't develop the muscle of knowing what your reader's expectations are and you will forever remain a mediocre writer
Regardless of authorial intent, everything posted here is for the wider HN audience
However, I think that AI-slop is genuinely harder to read and less information-dense than stuff written by a person, and I catch myself abandoning articles and other written content early on when they smell too much like AI. It's simply less worth it to read them because I'll have to spend some precious time figuring out wtf the text is actually trying to say.
It seems like the flow is "User A writes bullet points and has a model convert them to prose to send to User B. User B then uses a model to convert the text back to bullet points."
I would in every case prefer the bullet points or raw transcript of the AI session to just the final output.
It takes considerable effort, rules, examples, hooks and prompt to keep the popular $model reasonably concise, and yet STILL from time to time it starts vomiting absolute garbage.
At the moment the best recalibration is "shaming" it and showing both the negative (the vomit) and positive (slop replaced with human sentences). Good for a moment (up to 200k context).
I DESPISE this kind of slop prose
I've been tinkering with the latter for the last couple of months. Yesterday my system made some progress on instabilities on a particular superconductive system: https://colinocallaghan.com/autonomous-ai-research/Spatial-P...
> even got NASA to point a telescope at it for confirmation
What is uncool is how people are using cloud based AI and their universities are not providing self hosted models that keep data within the university. Cloud AI is useless due to it being no different than publishing everything you do publicly.
Dismissing something for lacking formal academic review is counter to the ethos of the site, and the link itself mentions that verification is coming in a month and there's at least a loose consensus of actual people that this might be valid.
If they'd said "excited to see if this replicates in November!" I would have at least believed that they'd read the link and/or had some interest in the topic.
I don't see any value in "this topic doesn't interest me", though
Asking for a friend.
"Vibe-turfing"?
What saved me wasn't asking Claude whether it was right (it almost always says yes). It was checks that don't depend on its own report: run it on data where you already know the answer, and give a fresh session only the result and ask it to break it.
For a planet hunt I guess that means hiding a few fake planets in real data to see if it finds them, and running the same pipeline on shuffled data to see how many "planets" it finds in pure noise.