Hacker News Reader

Comment by gchamonlive | Hacker News Reader

  I get the brain scramblies [1] from trying to parse this writing style at work so I hate to see it elsewhere

This sounds to me a lot like mass hysteria, people reading other people's behaviour online and reproducing it unconsciously.

More and more really important and useful information will arrive like this for us to consume. There's no way around. So this is a disservice for newcomers that could come and go unscathed but instead is crippled by these kinds of comments that brings nothing of substance to the table and has the potential to make them hate something they otherwise wouldn't even notice.

Also, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

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

  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.

View on HN

Curious how you see low-effort writing as a "shallow dismissal" or "tangential"

Everything is low-effort writing if your judgement is ideologically charged. Just read the damn post, it's very good, there's nothing low effort, but you need to read it as one single piece, not dissect it looking for hints of LLMisms, killing the article in the process.

Also if you think LLMisms so bad it's spam, you also don't get a free pass. From the guidelines:

  If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

Who said I was "ideologically charged"? I like AI and I use it every day. I simultaneously hate AI writing. It is impossible to parse. If you can read it fine, good on you, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand that other people perceive the world differently than you do. No one is "dissecting" this article under a microscope, it's obvious.

Understanding isn't a prerequisite for following the community guidelines. Everyone here is guilty of this, me included to be feeding this pointless discussion, and it's a bit disappointing from the mods not to terminate this thread. Either that or kill the main post. Keeping both up is contradictory.

As I already stated, it's only against your personal interpretation of the rules -- an interpretation that has curiously few other subscribers. Saying "the community guidelines mean what I want them to mean, now stop talking" is not a way to argue your point.

Care to say why my interpretation is wrong other than lack of subscription, because from where I'm standing, I'm the only one weaving any form of logical interpretation while your argument is basically "what a loser"

Look at the specific AI habits called out in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50037220

This sort of writing decreases readability. People say "just have your own LLM rewrite it" like you don't lose value when you go from prompt -> slop you didn't review enough to clean this crap up in -> someone else's prompt to change the style -> finally someone reads it.

Do you know what happens a double-digit percentage of the time when I ask Claude to rewrite some shit that it gives me like this? It says things like: "I overstated this, I rechecked and actually..." or "this claim doesn't hold up, actually [this other thing is true]..."

So it's a sign that the claims in the post likely weren't vetted very hard.

So if you aren't proofreading I'm gonna be skeptical. And saying "deal with it" doesn't rescue it. Does it?

And then there's the reflexive "you must just be an ideological hater." No. I'm someone who uses the tools in a domain where quality matters enough that I have to dig into the quality of the tool output and spot the tells for when it's low output, so that I can deliver shit that works reliably and consistently.

This is all absurd discussion. If you disagree with the article style, there is a flag button there.

  So it's a sign that the claims in the post likely weren't vetted very hard.

Our time is better used submitting something useful instead of debating meaningless guesswork in the comments.

It's not guesswork. I find it interesting to read comments like the one you're replying to as they echo my own thinking that I've arrived at through my own independent experiences. I'm mindful of confirmation bias though. I've also flagged the submission, as I do for all similar obvious slop articles.

But you're the one doing meta-debating!

Wouldn't feel the need to if folks would follows the community guidelines and stopped feeding the hysteria

Reply on news.ycombinator.com