That's interesting, thank you! My only pushback is that my bit about "allergy" and "status" is about the audience response here, whereas you seem to be talking on a somewhat different level.
Oh for sure. My only point is that IME (and I’d assume many other commenters) the quality of discussion and engagement around an imperfect ai-written doc is considerably worse than the same doc written by a human. Work is where it’s most obvious to me… because many of these are design docs for systems I care deeply about us delivering, but I’ve noticed the same thing elsewhere.
But you wouldn't have called it "allergy" or a "status" problem when considering the audience's response to human written posts of a similar low quality level.
It's always been the case that the HN audience has been "allergic" to low effort slop (including human generated).
The OP (and my) point was trying to point out how the AI generated stuff might masquerade as something "interesting" if it had been human written, but actually is much of a nothing burger when there's no human behind it:
if a human made a strange, weird, or even sub-optimal design decision, that's something to possibly have an interesting discussion about.
if an AI does the same, first of, I don't care and don't wanna guess why its weights did the thing it did, it's just not as interesting as human motivations, UNLESS the main meat of the article/link is in fact about (again the human experience of) "how I made this thing, using AI, what prompts, harness, models, etc".
I hope it makes sense and allows you to no longer dismiss this as an "allergy" (aka the audience's problem), but as something that is actually a quality problem with the post.
You are heavily discounting the human side of the generation effort. The first output from an AI might be slop but once you start injecting your own ideas and desires it lands much further away from what any AI would output on its own. (Not that there's no zero-effort slop around - there's a lot).
Sorry if I made it seem I think the human side of AI-use is without effort, because it's not and can take a lot of time (and effort/energy).
It is, however, my experience that even the people who spend a lot of time and effort generating something with AI, tend to shrug when you ask a deeper question about the project, and often point to the AI generated documentation, which is, let me be subtle and say, "not really a joy to read", and especially pales in comparison to having a conversation with a human who spent their effort on learning how to do the thing it did, instead of prompting an AI.
I'm also not saying there aren't any exceptions to this. But I've found them rare.
Like I said, even if the human doesn't quite understand what they generated, even then it would be preferable to read a human written article about how it was generated, using what tools and harnesses, etc.
I come to this website to learn stuff and converse with other people, not just to go "ooh aah" at what somebody generated with AI (if that is all they can offer).