[justAnotherHero]

To me it's a useful signal not to read an article that someone didn't bother to write.

Which is a shame as real insights are buried inside some of these articles, which if the author bothered to write in his own words could have reached an audience that would have appreciated them.

Writing is one of the areas where I want no LLM involvement.

[frio]

I keep coming back to this https://tombedor.dev/human-attention-and-human-effort/

The number of things that make it to the top of HN/Reddit/wherever now that are devoid a human's touch is exhausting. Whether it's a site that's got that Claude frontend smell, or a repo that's got a burst of 10 claude commits before getting shared and abandoned, or a series of blog posts that were written by LLMs... it's all, at this point, a flag for me that the human behind the LLM doesn't really want to engage with others or share; in some ways it dehumanises their entire (supposed) audience.

IDK. Maybe having Claude contribute writing about something novel to the general blogosphere is useful in some dimension, but it usually gives me no confidence in the truth of the post.

[CookieCrisp]

More often it's the difference between finishing something and not finishing it - so often LLM's are helping them reach an audience that would appreciate them, even if that audience doesn't include you

[gbalduzzi]

I agree with the copy-pasted slop that you see sometimes, that is probably generated from a short prompt and therefore has no real substance to it.

If an article has interesting content (which comes from an human) and the LLM is just used to help the author finish off the article, I don't have any problem with that.

Labeling both scenarios in the same category feels completely wrong to it, as equating vibe coded stuff (as in no human ever read the produced code) and agent-assisted good old software engineering