relevant_stats

You are completely missing my point.

We are not working for a company here. The 'gzip as a language model' is not a company project. I agree what you say would be right about inner company workings or also when working with contractors and customers. AI can save significant time, and there are another multiple guardrails in place for guaranteeing code will work - and it doesn't even matter if it's generated or written by hand.

This experience doesn't translate to Internet news aggregator at all. We are an audience, not a paying customer. There are no guardrails. And the OP is trying to get our eyes to read his post. The only experience most of us will have with it is the text of the post - so it's basically a main thing. I'm fully in right to note the post is generated with low effort.

Not seeing that is nothing but blindness.

> If you then use AI to write a product page documentation and proof read it for correctness, would that constitute to signaling that the whole effort is superficial?

It would constitute signalling possibility the whole effort is superficial.

Look around at the amount of slop that is thrown out there using low-effort methods.

I haven't order the work that is being presented here, I'm in no need to guarantee its correctness. I'm only bystander whose attention the OP is trying to grab by posting it on the HN. I don't know if his project is multi year or only multi prompt. The burden of proof lays on him to show he is not one of those another guys who hide emptiness behind AI generated text. Earlier the grammatically correct and carefully laid out blog post was in itself a proof that at least some effort was exerted. Now that important signal is worthless and when it's clearly written by AI it becomes an anti-signal.

At least according to me, because the front page of the last year shows surprisingly big number people love superficial slop.

I'll reiterate, I don't know if the work here is legit or not (and after seeing that ai documentation I have no desire to check that). Demanding from the reader to carefully look past the generated documentation and meticulously analyse the actual content is more time consuming than before and opens the gates for AI slop.

And that attitude also makes people who are not experts on the subject more defenceless against hoaxes and deceit. If both frauds and legit createor look superficially identical, because they use the same chatbot, then whom should the member of general public trust, eh?

> Ironic, isn't it? Yet you continue your lackluster form devoid any criticism of ideas.

Pointing out someone's contradiction is now being 'critical of form'? And someone's contradicting themselves is 'ironic'?

Now I'm not even sure you know the meaning of words you use. EOT from me.

so did I, that's why I clicked.

> I'm judging the ideas in your post, not its form.

and simultaneously you write that 'my form is lackluster' and that 'an LLM could have written your comment and improved its form without losing anything distinctive'. We are having ourselves a small contradiction, aren't we.

Be my guest, enjoy chatbot writing and drowning in slop. But don't encroach upon my freedom to protest it.

Yay, another mostly AI authored piece with vibe-coded aesthetics.

Some will say that I should 'judge the idea, not the form'.

But if the author didn't find enough strength to write alone a short ~700 words summary about his work, it means he himself isn't that interested or enthusiastic about it. Why should others bother then? Particularly since low-effort like that signals possibility the whole work is superficial and derivative.

> they imagine their a newly found ability to spot design generated with AI equates to them being able to spot bad design.

Who is imagining that?

> No, you silly geese. What you are able to spot is somebody using AI poorly. That's not you developing taste.

Again, I'm not really sure that the 'spotting AI' endeavour is always supposed to be a flex of someones own taste.

> You have absolutely no way of telling when a good designer created something entirely using AI (unless they are fine with you knowing that) and that has always been true.

I have trouble parsing your entire comment, but you have lost me completely at 'always been true'. I don't know how many hours your 'good designer' would waste on creating only with AI something able to fool everybody 2 years ago. It would surely be too many to be practical.

> You can't call people lazy because they use LLMs

I haven't done that at all.

You claim they think they have to listen to missionaries?

> If they work, does it matter?

The blog post provides something akin to answer to this question:

You see, the main allure of LLMs is that they allow the developer to be more lazy. That’s kind of the whole point! You just prompt, sit back and relax. So it should not surprise you to hear that this attitude is then reflected in everything the vibe-coder touches

As I understand it, one of concerns is that with the lowered barriers there comes a flood of low quality software, vibe coded by very lazy and not very talented people.

This might be actually more of a human problem, but it's a problem nevertheless.

> They see it as some great holy mission from god to go out into the hinterlands and convert the local people from their local existing belief system to their own particular form of Christianity.

Call me apologist, but I can see no real problem with that. They are willing to take risks and have enough motivation to spend resources. Whatever I think about their belief system in my opinion they are free to do that.

It's not 1800s, if the given population doesn't like missionaries, as far as I'm aware it's equally free not to listen to them. Or to throw them out.

> I don't agree. Good writing and good ideas are entirely different things. Just read all the beautifully written, inaccurate stuff by the NYT or the Guardian.

I'd be very curious of some examples when great ideas are being presented in bad writing (or bad speaking for that matter).

> Also, non-native English speakers have to use LLMs to share their views so that they are not judged on their writing.

weird statement. If they use LLMs they will be then judged for both their inability to write in English and for their usage of AI. Not good.

"Too long" is a property visible from the very start. "written by an LLM" is not.

Any better advice?

Ok, tell me then how exactly can I "not read it" when it's NOT disclosed?

The subject interests me so I'm beginning to read, only to waste minutes of my precious life on realising this is another long-winded slop. How should I avoid that?

> I dont get the investment in humanoids beyond trying to create some kind of stock market bubble again.

Our entire world is heavily adjusted towards bipedal humanoid creatures. Having a moving humanoid tool who could replace some of our physical tasks without the need to build additional infrastructure in proximity around it is BIG. Noting your reservation about fragility, even the possibility of cheap construction and agriculture work is VERY BIG.

The heavy usage of LLM writing as is the case here is a strong signal it doesn't and isn't.

I won't waste my time on a person who didn't bother to express themselves.

I'm really sick of LLM writing.

Oh, use they did, 100% Pangram score for a whole text doesn't come from small polish.

Of course it is.

And as usual the comment pointing this out is being downvoted and only to be found at the end of the thread.

This aggregator's community approach to important signals like that is baffling.

It's worse than that, the underlying data is more than questionable.

This is not a "map of castles".

I checked my local area, and it omits interesting castles, instead including palaces, landmarks and world war era fortresses.

Shameful submission.

You've confused the threads:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48523992

How exactly is existence of the "Get a free trial" banner an "opinion"?

I'd be interested to test your claim, could you show me examples of this "prompt or two"?

Seriously?

- Marketing material? check

- Bloated to the extreme? check

- "Get a free trial" at the end? check

- Entirely LLM generated? check

Yes, and the problem we are having here is 'raw' output. LLMgenerated slop is zero-effort bullshit, not an elaborate scheme to prove a philosophical thesis. There is no economy for mediaworkers doing the latter.

Similar as with coding, yes, halting problem!, but we've been always reviewing code nonetheless.

I don't know what your experience is, according to mine there are some people who are better than chance at picking this up.

And I believe my experience is something expected. People are also certain kind of a neural network. If an LLM system is trainable to be a decent detector, I don't see a reason why at least some people couldn't be.

As of now there are only two somewhat reliable tools.

First one is Pangram. Other available detectors are varying level of bad, with some of them entirely shit (eg zerogpt something).

The second one is human mind. Read enough of that slop and your brain hopefully will start detecting AI patterns.

And this article is totally AI, both to Pangram, and to my mind.

Äh, was?

So, snippet from the article says the following:

> I understand that Microsoft is planning to remove most of its Claude Code licenses and push many of its developers to use Copilot CLI instead. While Claude Code has been a popular addition, it has also undermined Microsoft’s new GitHub Copilot CLI coding tool — a command line version of GitHub Copilot that runs outside of development apps like Visual Studio Code.

And people here are interpreting this as related mainly to the Claude burning too much tokens too quickly and suggesting Microsoft should rather use SomeOtherLLM©?

Is this Hacker News or rather Marketing Wars?