[Wowfunhappy]

The problem is that it's also true. Comments like that decrease the quality of the discussion by attacking the "author" rather than the content.

(If the commenter had written even a couple sentences on why they suspected GPT-3, I would feel differently.)

[ColanR]

I mean, there's not much to elaborate on beyond what they said: "Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation."

[umanwizard]

It's not true, though. There really is substantive content in that blog post (although it's trite and probably useless advice, it's certainly making a real argument).

[ColanR]

I dunno. "Trite" and "substantiative" usually don't go together.

[Wowfunhappy]

Then don't say anything. Click the hide button.

[codezero]

I agree, and this is my instinct, but I worry about the effort becoming very asymmetric. In a world where a large amount of content CAN be generated (my time to read becomes much larger than time to generate / get my attention), and I may or may not be reading sincerely generated content, at what point do I get to attack the content creator for that, especially since it's very difficult for me to understand any given content creators intentions without some level of social proof or trust.

I think we're likely to get to a place where we either consolidate to trusted sources of information, or accept machine generated content as valuable on its own, even if for novelty and just move on with our miserable lives.

[albatruss]

This is exactly the reason why academics like their ivory tower, and value credentials more than egalitarian hackers do.

[codezero]

Because they can trust the work of their peers as having met some agreed upon standard, or are you saying academics are bad and hackers are actually egalitarian as a general rule?

[albatruss]

Trust is important. Hackers are naive and will rediscover the old lessons.

[happytoexplain]

Exactly. I can't tell if that poster actually suspects the content was generated, or if they are simply using the comparison as an insult.

[bawolff]

As a criticism, i don't see how that matters. An article written by a human at the quality level of gpt-3 has the same value as an article actually written by gpt-3. Knowing that gpt-3 actually wrote the article doesn't change its level vapidity. Either the article is vapid or it isn't.

[Wowfunhappy]

But there's no need to accuse the author of being a robot. They could have written:

> This article is vapid. Zero substantive content, pure regurgitation

Now, I would still have downvoted such a comment. If I'm reading a thread, I clearly like at least the article's topic, and I want to read more on that topic, not dismissive comments telling me that it's stupid. But, at least the modified version focuses on the content, rather than the author.