[timhigins]

It would be really nice to have a tag on HN to filter out LLM-generated, or at least partly AI-generated content like this.

If an article makes it to the front page despite being AI-generated it probably has some interesting points or ideas, but it's unfortunate that people seeem to choose the speed and style of LLM writing over the individual style and choice that made the writing of yesteryear more interesting and unique.

[kragen]

I was thinking about commenting the same thing. It had an awful lot of paragraphs that ended in a list of three sentence fragments, usually noun phrases, sometimes negated ones. Was that what tipped you off?

Now I wonder whether any of it is even true.

[glitchc]

It didn't strike me that this was written by a machine, not a person. Some bloggers prefer a punchy writing style. How can you be sure?

[cj]

It would be nice if you shared some supporting evidence rather than turning a guess into a definitive statement.

[npinsker]

It's clearly AI, both from the image (look at the text) and the vacuous nothingness of the ChatGPT-speak.

[cj]

If you believe that, it’s best to flag the submission and move on rather than pollute the comments. This is the equivalent of posting “this is a badly written article”. It doesn’t add any value.

[antonvs]

If an article is badly written or AI-generated, there's value in that being pointed out in the comments. It can save people wasting time, and ideally, discourage people from posting low quality content. That's a large part of the point of a site like this.

[cj]

If the community upvotes AI-genraated content to the front page, I don't see why it should automatically be penalized. (I respect your own opinion, which is why I suggest flagging the submission).

But clearly there's a reason it was upvoted if it's on the front page. Why ignore that fact... clearly the community thinks these articles have value if they're upvoted.

(Also, "it's AI, bad article" is just a weak complaint that can't be proven right or wrong - if you dislike it, share why you dislike it, e.g. lacking specific information, shallow depth, something other than "don't like it because AI")

[albedoa]

> It doesn’t add any value.

You don't speak for us. If you are going to demand supporting evidence for obvious statements, then you can present supporting evidence for your spurious claims about value.

[swidi]

So you can talk shit with zero consequences? How wonderful for you, and how terrible for everyone around you.

[albedoa]

I don't think you meant to reply to me.

[Brendinooo]

> No dining room. No servers. No storefront. No customers walking through the door. Just a kitchen.

> No ownership. No accountability. Just assembly-line cooking with zero connection to customers.

> No loyal regulars. No servers to smooth over problems. Just angry reviews that destroyed virtual brands forever.

Pretty common pattern these days.

That, plus the hashtags at the end (unless Substack uses those and I was unaware of it), plus the fact that we know he's using AI in some capacity because of the feature images - it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.