[queenkjuul]

"The content is AI slop and not worth reading"

[ddtaylor]

None of that is specific to the actual content. Might as well just say "I don't like it" which is also not objective analysis.

This article was about math functions, chrome, etc. If the author got something wrong, mention that, or if you don't like the pacing or how the content was divided into pieces, etc.

[Iggyhopper]

All of the issues with AI generated content can be explained further and in-depth because it has such a unique fingerprint in the pacing, verbosity, long-winded explanations, etc.. It also shows lack of effort. Just give me the prompt and the findings, I can write the article.

AI slop is a category and is categorically irritating to read, and not worth reading.

[fragmede]

We all want signal and no noise, but complaining about whether or not it's noise is just more noise.

[queenkjuul]

It's a signal to those who haven't read it yet that it isn't worth reading

[ddtaylor]

My 8 year old nefew can come into random HN threads and post "this is trash yo" and that would also be the same signal I suppose.