[dang]

I don't fully understand this, but I appreciate that the articles contain different information and there may be significant differences.

However, HN readers really don't want to read LLM-generated text. The feeling in the community is that rather than sharing the generated output, you should share the prompt, i.e. the part a human actually wrote. Users here are quite capable of interacting with LLMs themselves.

[danieltanfh95]

This is pretty much my writing with some edits around content I wanted to simplify. The article linked is not the same content at all. Not only does it only focus on the American perspective, it proposes the opposite of what I was trying to convey. The idea that this article is anywhere the same as "read an article containing essentially the same information without the pesky LLM voice" is just flat out misleading.

[dang]

> pretty much my writing with some edits

Content producers greatly underestimate the markers and imprints that LLMs leave on text while editing. Content consumers (a.k.a. readers) are increasingly sensitive to these, and once they sense them, they instantly reclassify the content as AI. This appears to be a spontaneous and involuntary reaction.

This is leading to a class distinction in writing: anything the audience classifies as genai becomes low-status. And the reverse: writing that the audience classifies as human becomes higher-status.

Two caveats: (1) the above is true of HN readers but there are many other audiences and some no doubt react differently. (2) the above is true of the current moment but nobody knows where these things will end up over time.

But at least on HN and at least for the near future, it's not in your interest to post this kind of text to HN.

[danieltanfh95]

> This is leading to a class distinction in writing: anything the audience classifies as genai becomes low-status. And the reverse: writing that the audience classifies as human becomes higher-status.

I see this to be the exact thesis that my article was trying to convey, though someone else put it more succinctly:

> I guess the irony is that dismissing points of view about how things could be improved here because they aren't sufficiently dogmatic is pretty much exactly what I understood the thesis of your article to be.