Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by simonw 380 days ago
What matters to me is that a human writer has verified the content and is ready to stake their reputation on it being worth my time to read.

It sounds like that's what you've done here, in which case I don't feel that you are wasting my time by having me read something that you haven't even reviewed yourself.
2 comments
yoyohello13 380 days ago
I've been trying to organize my thoughts of how I feel about consuming AI generated content. This comment really encapsulates how I feel.

As long as a human put time and effort into making something, then I'm willing to consider putting my effort toward reading/watching. If someone just spends 5 seconds to throw a prompt out there, that's when I get annoyed.

link
tasuki 380 days ago
> As long as a human put time and effort into making something, then I'm willing to consider putting my effort toward reading/watching. If someone just spends 5 seconds to throw a prompt out there, that's when I get annoyed.

Why? Do you care more about the origin than the quality?

link
Eddy_Viscosity2 379 days ago
> Why? Do you care more about the origin than the quality?

Because they are linked. AI content can be generated so frivolously and at such volume you easily be overwhelmed by low quality garbage. Humans can also generate crap, but a much slower pace and I think that AI being so good at crap generation that it will push out any humans in the space that used to meek out any work here. So, what we are left with is AI content that is mostly low-effort crap, with maybe some rigorously reviewed bits that are good here and there, and the human-content which will mostly be people who care enough to make quality content otherwise they would be already posting AI schlock.

The end is that using AI as a proxy indicator for garbage will be right more than its wrong. So if I see something is AI generated, I should give it a pass and not waste my limited time resource on it.

link
MichaelZuo 380 days ago
It does seem weird for someone to expect others to spend their time fully reading something… when they also have access to the same tools and can just tell it to summarize it back.
link
simonw 380 days ago
That would be true for writing where the author typed a sentence and the LLM expanded it to multiple paragraphs.

That is not what happened here: the author provided a lot more input than the finished article, and used the LLM to help crunch that down to as good a version as possible of the points there wanted to make.

link
MichaelZuo 380 days ago
Or so the author claims…
link
simonw 380 days ago
They provided receipts: https://github.com/steipete/steipete.me/pull/106
link
MichaelZuo 380 days ago
Where does it show “that the author provided a lot more input than the finished article“?
link
simonw 380 days ago
Every one of those 72 commits represents the author making a decision and having the LLM make edits based on that decision.
link