Says HN a thousand times on articles that are older than LLMs. I'm not saying this article is or isn't AI, what I am saying is that randos on HN saying something is AI with any definitive certainty hasn't been a great bet. All you do it does is add noise to the conversation.
Agreed, a lot of noise, but for actual data, all of the research into stylometry is also available to LLM vendors, and chasing that target is a major issue in academia and publishing.
So the pushback on the pushback on slop is also noise.
The most obvious ones to me are the sentences that aren't actually sentences but just lists of stuff (and sometimes not even proper sentences). It starts at the third sentence and there's one in the majority of paragraphs. LLMs love writing like this but humans don't do this.
"Support tickets, lead follow-ups, reports, internal updates, research, data entry, task assignment, status checks."
"Real work has missing data, unclear requests, old records, broken integrations, private context, bad formatting, vague instructions, and exceptions nobody wrote down."
"They still need ownership. They need monitoring, logs, fallbacks, permissions, updates, and someone who understands both the business and the software."
"People are busy tuning prompts, adjusting workflows, adding tools, joining calls about the automation, reviewing outputs, and fixing strange mistakes."
"It can speed up writing, coding, research, support, operations, and internal tools."
"It can fail, drift, break, make bad assumptions, and produce bad output with confidence. It can depend on tools that change, APIs that fail, and data that gets messy."
"It has to be designed, shipped, watched, fixed, and improved when the business changes."
"The part where the system meets real users, real data, real edge cases, real failures, and real Mondays."
Thanks for the examples. I actually kinda like it, as almost being a form of spoken word poetry; but yes, these lists do seem unusual on a second read-through.
Whether written with AI or not, I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that it's AI slop. We too often only categorize between no AI used and AI slop.
Does them using AI to write the article invalidate the points stated in any way? I personally don't think so. I too am weary of constant bombardment with AI but at the same time being against something just because AI was in the loop isn't much better, if at all.
Thats a fair take. I think it still holds some value because an opinion does not lose validity simple because its being presented poorly, but I also understand that the importance an opinion has for you, should inform the amount of effort you spend, to share it with others.
People have always judged ideas on their communication. if u rite lk this bro - I'm probably not going to pay much attention. Conversely if you write in a really formal way for a young audience you probably won't get far either. It's a shortcut of importance; if it's not important to you to communicate your message well, then it's probably not that important a message.
And this article is such Ai slop. You see the sentences? All short. All 'punchy'. All with repetition. All for maximum 'impact'. Constant unrelenting impact.
And the lists! The lists, the rolls, the lineup, the rows, the enumeration, the catalogue of examples that goes on too long for comfort, logic, joy, readability or attention.
I'd love to know how many people actually read all of this. I suspect most started skimming as it's just awkward to read, the pacing is just so Ai-y it's exhausting.
I'm never really sure the author reads things like this - I think they wrote something, asked a Ai to punch it up then skimmed it and said 'lgtm'. If you care so little why should anyone else?
I agree with your points, I just struggle with the stance that something is bad simply because AI was in the mix (which tbf is not what you are saying).
The writing style is a little too much for my taste as well. At the same time, many of the stylistic choises that LLMs make are not far from how someone who can write well, would express their opinions.
If it wasn't worth writing for the author, it won't be worth reading for you and I. If you have a point to make, putting it into words is part of how you structure and understand it yourself. I would much rather read a point imperfectly made by a person, than a bunch of algo-noise around the fuzzy outline of a point that nobody has thought through.
If you value your finite human time and attention you have to somehow sift through the deluge of slop and the simplest, most effective filter is to immediately ditch anything that fails the slop sniff test. You are not owed readers.
An unexpected challenge being that our sense of smell requires continual readjustment: Heavy use of em-dashes was formerly a "tell", but the AI-masters retrained them, and now they do the opposite. Indeed, there's a general scarcity of any punctuation other than the period.
It's continually evolving, but a gold standard tell is being very punchy and listy without any semantic content whatsoever. I don't think you can really fix that without heavier human involvement, which undercuts a lot of the slop use-cases. You have to know what you want to say, or the robot will just spin its wheels - and having something to say and a way to say it is kind of the part that requires the most work, so that's not attractive if you're running a bot farm.
Yeah of course not. When nobody notices, then there is nothing to discuss. Otherwise it would just be conjecuture. And by that logic anything where AI is noticable would be categorizable as AI slop. Which is exactly what I'm criticizing
I think there's a difference. Sometimes you'll see some random LLM tells like load-bearing if looking, but you don't notice on a first pass. Those are fine. Slop is slop