[nake89]

Yeah, it's quite bad. Just some of the classics:

- "Why This Matters"

- "That's accurate, but it's only half the answer — and the less interesting half"

- "this isn't an edge case. It's routine."

I'm at the point, I would just rather read something somebody actually wrote even if it's not grammatically perfect and has lots of spelling mistakes.

[mlhpdx]

Unfortately the expectation of readers, and algorithms, at large is perfection.

[Fnoord]

If this contained various grammer mystaeks, but interesting content, it wouldn't have been flagged. As usual with LLM, it is based on other content. Show me the source, we used to say to binaries... ¿Que pasa?

[mlhpdx]

So the upvotes were for? Anyway, we disagree — thats normal.

> As usual with LLM, it is based on other content.

Show me where else on the internet someone waxed poetic about a conceptual separation of transport and function regarding WireGuard. I dare you.

Show me another client library like the one in the article? That’s the double-dare.

Did you even read it?

[seanhunter]

Since you didn't think it was worth writing it yourself, I don't see how you can expect others to think it's worth spending their time to read.

[mlhpdx]

So no, then? Thanks for your thoughtful engagement.

[Fnoord]

> So the upvotes were for?

People getting tricked? Who knows?

> Did you even read it?

I quit when I figured it was written by an LLM. I'm not interested in reading LLM 'content' without it providing a source.

I am willing to generate some of my own sauce with a prompt, and then requesting the sources. That way, I know at least some parameters of the input and output.

But with your article, I do not know which sources were used as reference, I do not know which prompt you used.

As for HN, they're busy with tackling the LLM problem. They know it is a problem.

[mlhpdx]

Again, this was novel content. If you find a source of anything similar let me know. I'm belaboring this point for one important reason: content matters. I want to see new thoughts, not repetitive mindless drivel in personal "voice".

There has to be a balance.

[Fnoord]

One thing I've seen before is people being upfront about using LLMs (at the top of the content). That way, those who dislike it will feel less tricked.

[seanhunter]

The balance at least on this site is strongly in favour of humans writing things.

You’re belabouring the point because you don’t believe that by filling the internet with slop you’re doing anything wrong when actually it’s antisocial and wrecks the commons.

If you think content matters so much then just invest the time in writing it yourself rather than trying to convince others that it is ok that you didn’t.

[nake89]

> Did you even read it?

Did you? That is the issue we have. We can't know for sure that you even read your own article, since it has all the hallmarks of LLM generated content. It's embarrassing.

[seanhunter]

No. It’s authenticity instead of llm-generated blogvertising.

[mlhpdx]

When I ask an LLM, one that’s vaunted here for it’s skill on code, to “clean up obvious errors and improve readability” how is that “LLM generated”?

Yes it’s advertising in that I believe in my product and write about it.

[seanhunter]

Dude. Give it a rest. You had the LLM write an article, you posted it here. You got called out.

Just write your own blog and this won't happen in future.

[mlhpdx]

Sigh. I did write it, then I used an LLM to clean it up. Seriously, if you can find anything else out there making a similar point or providing a similar library I'd love to hear about it.

[nake89]

It did more than clean it up. It stained it completely.