supermatt

More like 2 years of your £10 a week paper round for that £10m return.

> What we are seeing here is a Luddite reaction from artisans.

They are hardly artisans. They are simply the vocal few who repeatedly conflate communication with art simply because the written word can be used for both.

Equally confused with this. They must be using a lot more guidance than just the provided prompt.

It’s the adverb of agentic, which is an adjective to describe something as having agency. I get it was a snark on the word, but it’s actually a legitimate pre-ai term.

> 7 t/s not sure how you can use this

80 t/s - maybe you need to finish reading a sentence before you comment on it?

Aren’t many of the greatest problems obscure to the lay?

> no one said it would be easy

You literally said “It's not hard”

The shop link is still “open”.

Resonate and agree with this 100%.

How on earth does one cut the letters out so small? Any links would be most appreciated!

EDIT: Seems like they post on X. heres a video with some letters being cut out. Its pretty much as you would expect, but with some serious competence! https://x.com/coca1127/status/2088029745221128308

Thats a better link than I originally gave so i have updated my comment with it. Thanks.

This is a service that will allow them to intercept your HTTP/S traffic being offered for free by a company that has been legally dead (following bankruptcy) for 12 years: https://datacvr.virk.dk/enhed/virksomhed/33753284

The company number I used to lookup is the one shown in the footer at http://www.netiter.com/

Maybe best to avoid!

EDIT: I don't mean to imply malice - many of us trust our *AAS providers with exactly this daily. But combined with the bankrupt company and overall vibe, I wouldn't be using it.

Sure, the problem is that people will just use humanisers if they aren't already.

I don't use one because my aim is to intentionally produce the obviously LLM-sounding output as that is what I find easier to read (although as others have said, I can preserve more of my "voice", if I tweak the prompt somewhat).

> a very derisive rant... the derision the author clearly has...

You either do not know what derisive means or have worse reading comprehension than I do! /derision

Seriously though - it's literally just talking about the use of an LLM as an accessibility aid and argues that the LLM-assisted writing can still contain human thought. What specifically did you consider contemptuous or mocking?

FYI: https://claude.ai/share/601e313e-905c-4e4a-bb6a-24a1315013e5

> slightly ill intent

There was no ill intent. The content itself described the reason for the process. Even simple comments I write here end up with multiple edits over the hour-long edit window.

If you read my entire comment history you will find I rarely make more than a single observation per comment. Anything more complex becomes too difficult to read and revise.

Cognitive impairment is extremely difficult to understand until you have experienced it. I am particularly lucid this afternoon. That doesn't mean the difficulty is not real.

My aim was to turn my ramblings into something more coherent. No more. No less.

I have made longer notes using exactly the process you prescribe, but that wasn't necessary for me in this case as it wasn't the most complex of ideas - I just regenerated until it gave me a fair approximation of what I wanted.

And to be fair - even if I had given it follow-up guidance it would still have the LLM "smell". It would receive EXACTLY the same treatment from the anti-llm crowd. Thats pretty much one of the core points of the post (judging the medium ahead of the content).

> this shifts when they realise

I think this is pretty much is what they were saying about the provenance being blind. If you are able to deduce the LLM usage through the long-form text then that removes the blindness and objectivity.

I wonder if you view adversarially humanised LLM-generated content in the same light as that which hasn't been obfuscated. I recall seeing some paper with examples posted here a few months ago, where I (and the participants in the study) literally couldn't tell the difference between them and human writing. I have considered using humanisation myself but there is both less control over the output and it (obviously) loses the LLM-like structure that I find so easy to read - and is therefore antithesis to my own objectives.

Thank you. Someone else posted similar with ChatGPT and it looks like that strategy could be a way for me to manually edit a lot more easily.

I get you are trying to make a point but LLM generated comments aren’t permitted on HN

> Fascinating seeing you get irate with people who are giving you feedback that your own thoughts are far superior to the regurgitated "cleaned up" version which is absolute garbage indeed.

That is not the part I take issue with at all! In fact many (if not all) of my comments to those people are thanking them.

I think you need to go and double check exactly what I have replied! Feel free to link to anywhere you think I have been irate in response to someone stating their preference! I think you will find my only grievance is where people have called the INPUT thoughtless or zero effort.

I’m finding it fascinating how people are commenting on what they think they have read rather than what they have actually read - both in relation to the post and in my replies.

I do appreciate your advice on following a writing course. I did exactly that to great effect in the early 2000s. Unfortunately it is of little help these days

> You didn't submit the input, you submitted the output

I submit BOTH the input AND the output - that was the ENTIRE point of the post.

Honestly, I beat myself up for years over having a reading disability - whereas it’s evident some of you don’t even make the effort to read yet still feel they have something to say.

Thanks. Im actually seeing that myself since someone helped me with formatting the word salad.

> Yes

Well you are of course entitled to disagree.

> I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.

What you actually said was that I "didn't put any meaningful thought into it". Thats the INPUT, not OUTPUT. Anyway. I think we're as far as we are going to get with this "discussion". Have a good evening!

I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them.

  1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM.
  2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship.
  3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools.

You are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims.

As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention.

You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.

Thanks for the feedback.

It's getting those abstract ideas back out from the word-vomit I find very difficult. It is almost completely impenetrable to me to read that text - even though I wrote it!

Someone in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49338214) has shown a prompt to just break it up and fix the sentence structure rather than rewriting, which should hopefully help me to at least re-read what I have written.

There are also many others stating the same things - and they are getting flagged and downvoted for it.

Just because those of you who disagree are more vocal, downvote and flag-happy doesn't make you right.

Wow, totally missed the point. Maybe you not knowing where to start was a good thing and you should have left it there and not sullied the internet with your useless ramblings.

> I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.

Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.

Huh, thats really interesting... That sounds a lot better than I expected, and is readable enough for me to edit it.

Thank you :)

I haven't always struggled so much, but my ability to read has severely diminished over the past decade. I find it much easier to communicate in short form. It has always been disproportionately time-consuming for me to write though.

It is the articulation of ideas that I struggle with and so I usually edit my comments multiple times. And to get rid of some of the more stupid stuff I say.

To be fair, that word salad would read more like this comment if I gave it some time, but it would take many hours to produce a simple post with the same readability as the LLM.

> which is barely any at all

Clearly you either didn't read it, misunderstood it, disbelieved it, or just DGAF :)