[ianstormtaylor]

If anyone’s wondering why this replier is so angry, it’s because they spent a lot of time arguing with people further down the comment section over whether this article is too heavily written by AI. (I'd say it is.)

It probably irked them to find the top comment had no mention of AI, but is still getting at the same root problem… the article is 2-3x longer than it could be, with lots of rambling and repetition, so it makes for a frustrating read.

[conductr]

Funny that I feel this same way around articles published on The New Yorker but have never once seen the same criticism about their articles. Usually it’s praised as great writing in the comment sections wherever it’s discussed. This observation predates AI by quite a while. In this case, I think its repetition is on purpose. I heard of the Flipper One recently and assumed it was a new version of Flipper Zero. I didn’t understand it was different. Even after they asserted it was at first, I didn’t fully grasp it until later in the article where the Layer 0/1 infographic was presented. This is quite simply consumer education around their products. Repetition isn’t always a bad thing, sometimes it helps and sometimes it’s done purposely.

[embedding-shape]

> If anyone’s wondering why this replier is so angry

Angry? I'm guessing it's the last part that made me seem angry, I'm not though, just human, and tired of people who say they want to help yet seemingly reading is too much. A bit of straightforward language seems more effective at communicating this, than dancing around the issue.

And why on earth would I care if the top comment mentions AI? I don't even read HN comments in the "points" order, I read comments in chronological order...

Why the vendetta, did I say something annoying to you in the other thread or what's going on?

[a1o]

Does sorting in chronological order require a special client for HN or is this something available in the web interface? (I can’t find it)

[embedding-shape]

Special client, I'm currently developing my own native, local-first, cross-platform HN client, a tiny little 7MB built-from-scratch beast: https://i.imgur.com/Y87KJwY.png :)

(Happy to accept beta-testers if people are curious, email in profile, available for Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS and Android currently, more coming soon :) )

[refulgentis]

They're responding to the same question I had, and others surely had.

Namely, we see a AI DDOS'ing blog entry, 20 pages text, 35 with images, thats a mishmash of specs and requesting help with...Linux kernel coding!? to support their selected SoC? For hardware they're already accepting preorders for?

Then, someone reframing confusion as many people failing to read, which is about the most incurious and thought short-circuiting idea possible, even before it is used in discussion.

This question is only more forward in my mind after noting you're taking things personally. (vendetta?!)

It is worth noting this is the second time in 18 hours HN is dealing with their AI spam.

Yesterday's was a preorder page with multiple "needs verification" and "needs clarification" markers, including in the darn spec sheet. (via ChatGPT's system prompt for non-coding writing tasks)

[embedding-shape]

> as well as why you're taking things personally (vendetta? really?)

Yeah, if you bring up completely unrelated stuff I've said elsewhere in a different context, to bring up where it's off-topic, then how is that anything else than personal, even the assumption about what feelings I'm feeling? Reply to what I said in that thread, if it's so damn important for you that I read what you write.

Fine, I understand the two of you really, really want to discuss if this article is AI or not, and how much of it is AI, and what what other Flipper pages were submitted to HN, but do you really need to discuss that in every sub-thread in this submission, can't that conversation happen where it happened before?

[jessyco]

Well said, and handled.

[refulgentis]

Not at all. Pretending we’re so hyper focused on whether it’s AI that we’re mislabelling good writing as bad. And using abusive language. Marginally better than pretending everyone can’t read, I suppose.

[embedding-shape]

Yeah, agree, ignoring would have been a much better response from my side, now in after-hand. I'm glad I said what I said though, although not sure where the "abusive" language comes from.