[embedding-shape]

Tbh, I'm getting more frustrated with the ever-coming flood of "Bah I didn't read because it was obvious AI blah blah" which seemingly every single submission HAS to come with nowadays on HN, god forbid someone is more interested in the content than the flow of the words.

If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead, and we could discuss those or even correct the linked page itself, as it seems to be a wiki. But general complaints that could be copy-pasted for any submission, just so you can feel heard about that you think this was AI written, gets so tiring to read for every submission.

[cobolcomesback]

It is unreasonable to expect “specific complaints” about AI vomit like this, because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it. It’s simply not feasible to give specific criticisms, because the criticism is with all of it.

It’s like submitting a 10 page pull request to someone and then getting mad because the person didn’t give comments on every single snippet of code. The issue isn’t the snippets of code, the issue is the attitude that led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.

[embedding-shape]

> It is unreasonable to expect “specific complaints” about AI vomit like this, because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it. It’s simply not feasible to give specific criticisms, because the criticism is with all of it.

But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?

No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.

It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written" or not in the comments, although I'd hope it'd be considered vastly off-topic.

[jjulius]

>When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life.

At the risk of being flip... maybe close this tab and move on?

>It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth...

Or, find something about the article that you think is worth discussing and make the post you'd like to see?

[palmotea]

> But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?

> No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.

I think the point of those comments is to save others that time.

Do you really think it's reasonable to expect every single person to read some piece of slop, and independently make an effort to evaluate it to determine if it's worth reading?

[cobolcomesback]

> No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well

The front page of HN is limited real estate. I visit HN to discover and read interesting and quality content. Whether or not I am “forced” to read it, every piece of AI vomit that’s on the front page is taking a spot away from the real human content that I (and others) really want to see.

> here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written"

I genuinely find this discussion in the comments to be of more value than reading the AI content in the article.

People will discuss the content in front of them. If you don’t want that discussion to be about AI content, then the solution is to not submit (or upvote) AI content.

[no-name-here]

> limited real estate

Even more precious than HN real estate is the time of (how many HN readers are there?) unknowingly spending their time to read something that wasn't even worth 1 person’s time to have written themselves. (In OP’s case they said it partly came from Russian and provided the first draft so I'm more understanding.)

[kgwxd]

To expand on your previous point, "because the criticism is with all of it", I think the criticism is really with the HN community allowing so much of it to reach the front page. A little bit would be tolerable, but the ENTIRE front page is garbage like this now.

[mbesto]

Did the PR achieve it's stated goal or not? Thats what we should be focusing on.

> because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it.

So then let's focus on that, and not whether it's generated by AI. Yeesh you people are hard to please.

[atroon]

> led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.

Agreed, a 10 page PR is not on. But the original article, though evidently touched up, was appropriate in length and scope. What's your real criticism here?

[skinkestek]

Either it has been updated since you read it or I have no idea why you think it is AI generated after reading half of it.

[ctenb]

I was hesitant to post my comment. It's the first time I've complained about this on HN I think. And it's not only about the flow of the words at all, it's more about reading something that no one wrote. Especially if it's about a project that seems interesting, having AI written text tells me it's maybe not the passion project I otherwise would think it was.

[SJMG]

You're right to complain. Writing code whose principal job is to be compiled and executed by a computer is not at all the same as writing prose whose job is (hopefully still) to be read by a person.

Up to a couple years ago, the latter was essentially a product of lever-less human attention.

[hdb2]

Just commenting as a friendly FYI - the author commented above and noted that there was no AI used, just translation tools. Honestly, I'm not sure why the grandparent thought it was AI; it didn't read that way to me at all.

[embedding-shape]

So because this article seems AI written to you, this business and project which is on it's second iteration and been around for years already, maybe isn't a project of passion in your eyes?

Seems like a huge logical leap to make, based on things that it seems you cannot even exactly quantify here, as you're still not pointing out what's wrong with the text, just saying that the text is somehow "lacking of soul" or something like that.

[codechicago277]

The criticism is that this is a respectable project, so when you read obvious AI tells like “Honestly, …”, or “Flipper One isn't an upgrade to Flipper Zero — it's a completely different project with its own goals” in the first few paragraphs, it’s distracting and takes away from the content.

A simple fix I use for AI writing is disclosing it. Here, a simple note that “this article was translated with AI assistance” would have made it much less distracting.

[ValdikSS]

You're biased. AI was trained on a well-written professional texts which used these phrases and speech patterns, it was very common before the AI-generated texts. These speech patterns especially common for Russian speakers.

[Semaphor]

The thing is, those are human-used words. Overused by AI, but very much not exclusive. Especially the way they were used here felt very different from slop as they made perfect sense.

[InsideOutSanta]

> If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead

Accusing text of being written by an LLM is a specific complaint about the text. It's shorthand for "the text is overly verbose and uses the typical clichés LLMs are known for, which makes the text unpleasant to read (it's too much text and too many empty clichés) and also makes me distrust the text, because now I'm not sure anyone even looked over it and made sure it says what they wanted to say."

It's just shorter to say "this sounds like it's written by AI."

[karlgkk]

If you can’t be bothered to write it, I can’t be bothered to read it.

[embedding-shape]

But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN, which you ideally can copy-paste across all potential LLM-written comments? Something doesn't add up there, don't spend energy writing the comments if you cannot even be bothered to read it because no one was bothered to write it.

[max__dev]

I don't think the copy-paste dismissal is sound. Consider: You can ideally copy paste your generic comment across all potential LLM-written-criticism comments? And I can copy paste this generic comment on all LLM-written-criticism-apologist comments. Something doesn't add up here.

[mftrhu]

Yes? There is nothing incoherent with disliking something and putting in effort to see less of it. "Ignore it" is an answer, not the only possible answer, and probably not the optimal one in the long term.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN, which you ideally can copy-paste across all potential LLM-written comments?

I mean, I personally wouldn't specifically on HN, since it's generally unproductive conversation, but yes? You say this as if there is some gotcha or contradiction there, but there is not. It is far, far, far less work to write a short comment than to read pages and pages of AI slop.

[karlgkk]

I didn’t copy paste it.

[King-Aaron]

Personally I detest AI generated creative content with every fibre of my being any will gladly rubbish on it without bothering to read the slop first.

[embedding-shape]

Same, nothing I said is in conflict with that. I just equally despise HN comments vaguely complaining about maybe AI written content.

[King-Aaron]

Yeah I agree with you there.

[brookst]

It reminds me of high school, ages ago, when a friend would go on and on about how Depeche Mode weren’t musicians and how nobody cares about electronic music. I’m a little nostalgic for the hours, cumulatively probably weeks, that I heard about just how much he didn’t care about Depeche Mode.

[GJim]

> But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN

Is 'whataboutism' your counter argument? Really?

[rpdillon]

This is reductive. The author did write it, but used AI to polish it before publishing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48221934

[karlgkk]

If the author bothered to write it, then I can be bothered to read it.

[squidbeak]

I'm mostly the opposite. I'm glad to see people calling this out. Do we really want it to become normal to offload communication to another entity?

"Claude, I need to send my wife an apology for shagging the secretary. Please make it tender and remorseful."

A person's take on anything isn't their take any more if someone else articulates it, and there's a real risk we slip back to a hired scribe culture, with the multitude volunteering to return to illiteracy because they can't be arsed to type or even speak - beyond brief outlines.

But the case is totally different for organizations and companies. They've always used copy editors to write their blurb, usually in a pasteurized flat business style that was always far removed from individuality and near-identical across organizations. I can't see why using AI in these cases makes any difference.

[zamadatix]

There was also a similarly common debate AI written/aided comments on HN until, ultimately, the guidelines were updated with an official stance saying they weren't allowed because HN is for human to human discussion. Honestly, the same kinds of comments and meta-complaints would occur for any of the things the guidelines comment on. It doesn't mean those common complaints would be wrong to have, that's part of how the guidelines get formed, it just means we haven't figured out what makes sense or not for the site yet.

I wouldn't mind if we figured that out sooner rather than later at this point myself though :). Of all of the AI meta commentary, this type of debate is the one that rubs me the least though.

[armchairhacker]

I'm not convinced it's AI.

But it has a problem common in AI, where it makes bold claims "we believe this is the only way to make a truly meaningful contribution to the open-source community and to education" without explaining, and too much filler ("...All the messy stuff companies usually keep behind closed doors. This is uncomfortable. We've never been this open before, and there's a real instinct to hide the unfinished work, the wrong turns, and the arguments...")

[fidotron]

AI apes that because it's been status signaling american corpospeak for a while.

Almost like they're trained on LinkedIn or something.

[pelasaco]

I guess it's the same with "I rewrote blah blah in Rust," where everyone knows it was vibe coded. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but Hacker News is a forum mostly read by people who enjoy hacking and building things. "Vibe coded codebases" and AI generated text generally aren't praised here, although they certainly are in other places. Or maybe it's just a matter of time until hackers get over or used with it. Time will tell...

[nkrisc]

I like being warned about AI generated content before I waste time reading. If the author couldn’t even be bothered to write it, it’s a good sign I shouldn’t be bothered to read it.

[parliament32]

I appreciate these comments, because they're a warning. If I'm on the fence about whether a link is worth a click-through or not, I'll have a peek at the comments first, and when I see something like this I don't bother (like with this article).

If it's just long-term generated text, why bother posting the link at all? Why not ask for a bullet point summary and make a text post? Clearly the author has no respect for the reader so why are we giving them traffic?

[blanched]

On the one hand, I get what you mean. Some genuinely interesting projects are immediately dismissed because AI was involved.

On the other hand, I have two real problems with AI writing.

1. LLM prose is genuinely unpleasant to read. Its the exact same way that I strongly dislike reading LinkedIn posts or email marketing copy. It's all the same slimy tone that's using a certain sentence structure and rhetoric to try to be interesting without real substance.

2. Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar: the author couldn't put in time/effort to make this enjoyable to read, so now I have to spend more time/effort reading it.

Personally, I don't read through all marketing copy to see if "this one is going to be good", nor do I want to spend time providing constructive critical feedback on it.

[embedding-shape]

> LLM prose is genuinely unpleasant to read

What exact parts from the submission are "genuinely unpleasant to read" right now? Highlighting those could make it better rather than just filling HN with "LLM texts is boring to read".

> Sometimes it feels like someone asking you to read an article with no punctuation or grammar

Ok, but is that actually the problem here, or why are you adding more general complaints instead of focusing on the actual submission article?

If you don't like it, don't read it, don't contribute to the discussion, I don't understand this obsession with "must let others know I don't like LLM writing, although I'm not 100% sure this submission actually suffers from the issues I don't like with LLM writing".

[tisdadd]

I mean, I got about half way through before going blah. But it is a fun looking project and it is great that they are pushing for an open platform.

I like to read, but some writing is more enjoyable than others. If you want to contribute to their wiki, you can do so.

[blanched]

I mean, you posted a comment and started a discussion about "LLM complaints on HN", so I replied to that. I didn't comment about the article itself.

Part of my point is that the line between "written by an LLM" and "written for marketing" is so blurred that you can't always tell anyways.

[boesboes]

nah it is just super disrespectful to make me read something you were too lazy to read.

[superloika]

The medium is the message. AI text is a bad message for me.

[0gs]

the flow of the words IS the content?

[jchw]

Okay. So if I copy and paste an AI response written by Claude and you can't actually find a specific problem with it, are you still fine with that? If so, please start your own damn website and enjoy talking to AI and reading AI text all day. I'd really really rather not.

[NikolaNovak]

They are tiresome but also understandable. I do not want to read AI generated content, even when its correct, because at that point what's the value? I'm reading results of somebody else's prompt, might as well use my own.

I'm surprised any author today isn't pre- or appending their articles with simple statement on AI usage. Transparency goes a long way.

[codechicago277]

Agree, I find AI valuable for writing reports on the behavior of features in our codebase, but I’ve started sharing the prompt at the top of the file before sending it out, and reviewing the content line by line to catch obvious errors.

[monegator]

It is exhausting to always have to read word salads with little content.

Every single fucking article with 20 lines of introduction before you get a chance for actual content. LLM slop then dilutes the information, and LLM slop always read the same way. You know, how easy it is to spot LLM generated content, it is actually refreshing when you can tell it's a human.

[jrmg]

I feel like the whole internet is recipe sites now sometimes.

[xgulfie]

LLM content is so exasperating to read, it always reads like a student trying to pad out their paper, or like a press release with no details

[voisin]

I think this is due to lazy prompting. It isn’t hard to get an LLM to write concisely, with a logical flow and to be direct with the point you want made. I’d rather read something an LLM has written in this manner than a lot of things I come across written by humans.

Regarding padding out word counts, I see this more often in newspapers and magazines than I do in AI-land. It’s like Netflix shows trying to meet an 8 or 10 episode minimum - horribly boring with unnecessary filler.

[embedding-shape]

> It is exhausting to always have to read word salads with little content.

Agreed, but you know how others solve this problem? We close the tab, move on with our lives, without feeling the need to leave the generic "This seems like it was mostly written with LLMs" slopplaint HN comment.

[suddenlybananas]

Why is it okay for you to post a comment complaining about people posting comments complaining about AI posts? Why don't you just move on with your life instead of posting a complaint on HN about others' complaints?

[feelamee]

because 70 of 140 comments under this submission are owned by this thread about AI.

And this is usually not what you want when you click on an interesting submission

[ImPostingOnHN]

> because 70 of 140 comments under this submission are owned by this thread about AI.

This is an effect, rather than a cause. The root cause is often (but obviously not always) that the submission was written with AI to begin with. In instances like this, it is useful to focus on the root cause, not a proximal effect.

> And this is usually not what you want when you click on an interesting submission

More importantly: overly-verbose LLM output is usually not what you want when you click on what you thought would be an interesting submission.

In general, reading comments written by actual humans about how a submission is AI, is preferable to reading a long submission written by AI. If I wanted to talk to AI, I can do that without HN. HN is where I come to discuss things with people.

[feelamee]

> In general, reading comments written by actual humans about how a submission is AI, is preferable to reading a long submission written by AI

Not as in general as you think.

I don't care who writes comments/article - be you human, LLM, anthropomorphic android, nexus five or six, or my neighbors dog. It definitely doesn't affect anything - if your thoughts are interesting to me, I will be interested in reading them.

[monegator]

> We close the tab, move on with our lives

Which is what i usually do, but if in that moment i am particularly fed up with it i will also leave the comment.

Then there are more zealous combatant that will pollute all the slop posts

[monegator]

Another thing i noticed: every time i am even slightly critical of anything LLM, i get a wave of upvotes followed by a wave of downvotes

[embedding-shape]

upvotes/downvotes here and elsewhere stopped being a good indicator of quality as soon as it was deployed. I don't think any numbers can be trusted on the internet or the web anymore, you'll see high quality comments being downvoted and trash comments being upvoted all the time, it just completely stopped mattering.

I'm viewing HN currently in a client that renders the HN comments completely flat and in chronological order, so I don't get subconsciously biased by the order anymore... https://i.imgur.com/wZ7s6Ow.png

[monegator]

Yes i know, mine was a (not so) thongue in cheek remark about karma farming and bots everywhere

[ryanschaefer]

It’s the fat introduced by the process that annoys me the most. The user of the LLM had an idea, but it got greased up and packaged into something that the average person would create, not a specialist in the domain. It dumbs down everything into a single perspective / way of presenting a topic.

[palmotea]

> If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead, and we could discuss those or even correct the linked page itself, as it seems to be a wiki. But general complaints that could be copy-pasted for any submission, just so you can feel heard about that you think this was AI written, gets so tiring to read for every submission.

No. And the reason is pretty simple: if you couldn't bother to write it, why should I bother to read it?

And that's the problem with AI: it creates floods of that stuff and makes it hard to differentiate the good-faith use from the bad-faith use. The default can't be "reader, waste your time, even on garbage." A reader-respectful norm needs to be set, and those comments you complain about are part of that. The people making these things need to learn that they've got to put in the work if they want to be read (at least by serious audiences).

[no-name-here]

Yeah, I'd be fine with it if every AI-generated posted was required to have “AI gen:” at the beginning of the title so that readers could make an informed decision about whether they should spend their time to read something that was not worth even 1 person’s time to write.

[embedding-shape]

Yeah, would totally resolve the problem of half the comments in each submission discussing if the author used AI or not, and if they did, exactly how much. People would just see the "AI gen:" and if they disagree, refrain from leaving comments about it, since everyone here on HN is so agreeable with each other.

[nosioptar]

I wish HN would do that, especially on show hn posts.

Personally, I'd skip clicking on any slop links, which eliminates any anti slop comments I'd make.

[lkey]

Wow! I hear you and you're absolutely right.

It's not just short-sighted of <these commenters you hate>; It's self-destructive!

* It's the job of the consumer to correct and edit the content they consume

* Content creators have it hard enough ——— prompt-crafting and imagining transformative and disruptive new horizons in tech

* So what if the prose is 4x longer than it should be? The time value delta between real creatives and the average HN-er can't be compared —— A complete paradigm shift

* If they were real hackers they'd have their AI summarize and distill the info —— I think we can all see who the posers are

I'm excited to read content everyday... 'slop'? That's a coward's word, I see past the prose into the core of the data space, and I'm stronger for it.

[ryanschaefer]

The oversized emdashes are chefs kiss

[m0llusk]

Kind of like digging in tar pits: Hey, look, there's another one of those.