[standardly]

That is copied straight from an LLM.

Do folks make no attempt at humanizing their LLM outputs? Is that even worth doing?

I personally wish you guys would - the moment I realize I'm reading an LLM-generated comment, my interest immediately wanes and I stop reading.

[pureliquidhw]

Hate that I'm biting on this, but this isn't constructive, whereas AI generated or not, the comment above is. It is the top one, it is succinct, and it articulates the point clearly.

You seem to lament AI and given the context of that comment, the author presumably does too. The world is moving faster and faster towards AI first so kicking an screaming "That's AI" will not help. AI generated noise sucks, nut this is not it. We're moving closer and closer to a self-censored, milquetoast internet. Don't bring down a person for putting themselves out there, instead build on their case or build one of your own if you disagree. Shitting on well articulated points only pushes them further out of common discourse. We are all strangers on the internet and owe each other nothing, including this feedback, so do with it what you will.

[standardly]

I simply disagree. If I wanted an LLM's opinion, I would forego HN entirely and just use ChatGPT. I browse forums like this to get organic opinions from real people.

When I see someone post an LLM reply, it makes me wonder - is the reply synonymous with their actual opinion, only formatted better? Or are they attempting to disguise an LLM output as something of their own? The former I am much more OK with, but the latter irks me for reasons I haven't fully considered and you have me thinking about.

"Calling out" AI comments has felt like somewhat of a duty, heh, but maybe we've reached a point of no return. I still value a real, organic opinion, though, no matter how well an AI can summarize it.

[stackbutterflow]

> If I wanted an LLM's opinion, I would forego HN entirely and just use ChatGPT.

We used to say "My google search is not your google search". I think we can say that OP's prompt is not your prompt.

[joquarky]

>When I see someone post an LLM reply, it makes me wonder

>but maybe we've reached a point of no return

So you're creating your own suffering by perceiving a duality that doesn't really matter.

[myrmidon]

It clearly matters to him, and perception is not really a choice.

Personally, I've grown somewhat allergic to "AI-isms", and I'd rather not be (this example is still somewhat acceptable though). I also don't understand how we haven't trained this particular, obnoxious writing style out of them by now...

[standardly]

Agreed. And, I could have stated it simply:

It just annoys me.

I wouldn't consider this something that really matters to me, though. I'm not up in arms over it. It's not an insurmountable annoyance. It didn't ruin my day. (LOL, the other comment about "perceived duality"... It's really not that deep!)

I didn't know I was going against the grain, though. It seems folks here are perfectly fine with AI discourse. How do we even know when a user is real? I digress.

[ChoGGi]

Hacker News guidelines state

"Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans. "

[brendoelfrendo]

Alright, hit me: what are the tells that this is AI?