If it's interesting then it's not spam. And why should you care if AI was utilized or not if you found it interesting? Dave (from that video) is an experienced engineer after all.
The worst part of GenAI seems not to be AI slop (I can easily close the tab if the content isn't interesting). It's the fact that every...single...submission(!!!) on HN now has someone questioning and dissecting the content to dismiss it as AI generated.
I'd much rather people gave submissions the benefit of the doubt, or just clicked `Flag` if it is obviously worthless slop.
Just like those spam 'articles' that may at their core be interesting or have some value - but force you to click past 4 ads and scroll over/filter out another 17 just to extract the promised value - noticing that content you're consuming is obviously AI generated results in two things:
1. resentment that your time and attention was wasted by machine generated word-padding, and
2. a loss of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented
> Just like those spam 'articles' that may at their core be interesting or have some value - but force you to click past 4 ads and scroll over/filter out another 17 just to extract the promised value
That's a different problem entirely and predates the recent GenAI craze.
> a loss of confidence in the accuracy of the information presented
Then it isn't interesting any longer ;)
---
You're missing my general point though. People like yourself moaning about AI is far less interesting and useful. If you don't like the content, then flag it. If you do, then don't flood the comments with analysis about whether-or-not this was AI.
All of these meta-comments about AI are as worthless to the discussions should be classed with the same disrespect as the meta-comments about website stylesheets:
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
> You're missing my general point though. People like yourself moaning about AI is far less interesting and useful. If you don't like the content, then flag it. If you do, then don't flood the comments with analysis about whether-or-not this was AI.
As opposed to flooding it with comments about how anti-AI comments are bad?
I'm not flooding HN with such comments though. I replied to one criticism and then experienced a backlash for it.
I get the hate for GenAI is high. Many of you are scared for your jobs and AI has caused a seismic shift in society. But that doesn't justify lashing out at me because I simply said "Dave isn't a n00b" and "if you don't like AI content then flag it".
My comment was reasonable. However accusing a veteran Microsoft engineer for being an "idiot" (as some had in this submission) because his script loosely mimicked some AI-isms, is not reasonable. And it's disappointing that so many people are defending that behavior.
I wasn't talking about your general point though. Your comment opened with a statement and a question, and I was quoting the statement and directly answering the question you asked.
> That's a different problem entirely and predates the recent GenAI craze.
From the perspective of respecting the reader's time and attention, I see it as almost exactly the same problem, which is why I made that comparison when answering your question.
> ...People like yourself moaning...
Seeing as you conveniently linked to the HN commenting guidelines, I suggest you take another look at them, maybe focusing your attention on the ones closer to the top of the list, and then re-read the comment you just posted.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
?
I wasn't doing anything of that. Or at least, if you want to take a looser interpretation then I don't see how my reply was any different from your initial reply to me.
From the rules:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I ask that you view my comments through a more charitable lens. Because I'm not trying to belittle people here.
---
> From the perspective of respecting the reader's time and attention, I see it as almost exactly the same problem, which is why I made that comparison when answering your question.
It's not the same problem though. We are talking specifically about AI. Not some other related but different issue.
I do actually agree with you on that other issue. But arguing that they're "almost exactly the same" isn't charitable. Which leads back to the HN rule I quoted above.
---
I think a lot of the problem in this tangent boils more down to peoples bias against AI than it does about the actual content I replied with. I get why people hate AI. And I'm genuinely not defending AI as a broader technology. I'm just saying that people dissecting each and every submission on HN for tell-tail traits of AI isn't the right way to deal with the problem. Just flag the submission and move on. (and in this case, it's not even AI generated content).
The fact that my comments appear so controversial is baffling to me. People complain about the value of their attention being undermined with AI and yet they'll spend twice as long in meta-debates about that content. Surely that's contradictory to the point they're complaining about. So why is "flag and move on" such a disagreeable statement?
> It's the fact that every...single...submission(!!!) on HN now has someone questioning and dissecting the content to dismiss it as AI generated.
Then, when finally neither the topic nor the content has anything to do with AI, "It's so nice to read something on HN not mentioning AI" in the comments.
HN has made a clear decision on when AI content is acceptable on the site itself, it'd be nice if there was a clear decision on the linked content as well. Regardless whether it's the policy I'd personally prefer or not, it'd do a lot in regards to avoiding the same discussion appearing everywhere.
It's moreso the "AI-isms" that irk me. It's interesting, but I'm not finishing the video because once I notice it -- I can't help but focus on it. Instead, I tl;dr'd the transcript.
People question my use of AI when I double `-` with an iPhone on the internet constantly.[0] I get it, it's annoying.
However, if our barrier for quality is "at it's core, the content of this is interesting", then the quality of this place will fall off a cliff. This is factoid-level interesting. It's not a hacker writing something profound or presenting a breakthrough in garbled grade 8 English. It's a fun fact being presented in an acceptably, inoffensive, reasonably produced format.. Is that the bar?
Dave (the guy in that video) is an older timer Microsoft engineer. I don't know if he used AI to help compose his script but you can guarantee the subject matter is from his own experience.
I suspect the AI-isms you identified were really just more his own personal presentation style. I've watched a few of his videos over the years and from what I recall, they were similarly written.
Tough crowd, but I for one hate this stuff too and thank you for the heads up. "Engraved invitation to chaos", fucking hell. I think I just lost 3 IQ points. Who's the target audience here?
Everything I needed to know about printf, I learned from the reference manual. Anybody could do the same. Here's a reasonable one: https://en.cppreference.com/c/io/fprintf - look, it's like 5 pages or whatever, and the last 2 are examples and xrefs. You sit there and read it 2 or 3 times and you'd be done faster than Task Manager Man can read his script.
The worst part of GenAI seems not to be AI slop (I can easily close the tab if the content isn't interesting). It's the fact that every...single...submission(!!!) on HN now has someone questioning and dissecting the content to dismiss it as AI generated.
I'd much rather people gave submissions the benefit of the doubt, or just clicked `Flag` if it is obviously worthless slop.