Hacker News Reader

Comment by amitpoonia19xyz | Hacker News Reader

It feels jarring to see these LLM generated blog titles everywhere, cant bring myself to read the content of it even if I am interested.

View on HN

That’s a pretty common title format for talks or blog posts long before LLMs existed.

I support this claim. Also the title already includes everything relevant compared to „we made Postgres 20x faster“.

On the other side if dev(ops) does not know that local storage is faster than network/cluster filesystems…

I feel its hard to prove that either way, but even the content of the article itself is full of LLM generated text, for e.g. here is one line from the conclusion "The bottom line is deliberately narrower than the title".

I'm starting to find complaints about AI generated content more annoying than the content being complained about.

Agreed. Almost every submission has someone claiming it's AI now, it's pretty exhausting.

That's a load-bearing statement.

Yes. My experience: "Oh interesting title". "Oh god... slop galore. Disappointment, sadness, dejection, a feeling of being dismissed and not taken seriously, alienation from the world", "OK close the link".

Happy to still be here among my fellow humans. Hackernews the last bastion it feels like.

Can we somehow filter out slop from the front page? That would be great :).

some kinda system running the linked page through pangram and then putting the result in a small font next to the submission time would be perfect I think. A small font to keep the idea that such things may potentially hold value while satisfying those who aren't interested. Nobody has to argue about it themselves then because it's unambiguous, and everyone can filter them out if you choose.

I'm generally very pro-AI, including for writing, as long as the "producer" (I wouldn't want to call the human responsible the author) has vetted it and will judge based on whether something reads well rather than on whether it feels AI-written.

But using detectors to label so people can choose seems entirely reasonable to me even with a risk of false positives, and I think a lot of people who are generally pro-AI would feel that's fine.

Perhaps LLM users who are open and happy to enable reader choice could label AI-assisted writing as such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com