[skippyfish]

Discourse as we know it doesn't work if the cost of producing an infinite supply of arguments is essentially zero, while the cost of reading them and arguing with them remains high. Unless you want my LLM to get back to your LLM.

And this is a problem on HN today. There are powerful incentives to generate provocative opinion pieces just for clicks. I've seen websites on HN that seemingly took the human entirely out of the equation and just post a nearly identical op-ed every day on a fixed schedule. What's the point of engaging with that?

[chungusamongus]

The cost of reading this story is not high; you are just lazy and easily distracted. It took 5 minutes to read. You took more time to respond to this comment than it took to simply read the story.

[FreakLegion]

skippyfish: > the cost of reading [an infinite supply of arguments ...] remains high

you: > The cost of reading this story is not high

Do you see where you went wrong?

[chungusamongus]

Please explain where I went wrong. Please explain why the onus is on the person presenting this story to account for all of the bad uses of AI, such that we should simply dismiss the story outright. This is pure idiocy.

[FreakLegion]

The onus is always on the writer. No one is owed an audience.

[chungusamongus]

That's not what I said. Do you have trouble reading? Are you subliterate or just lazy?

[FreakLegion]

*> That's not what I said.

So close to spotting the mistake you made in your response to skippyfish, yet so far!

[jason_oster]

I'm a slow reader. It took 9 minutes! Foul, I say!

[thatjoeoverthr]

Oh, you think it’s just this story? The cost of reading slop is infinity. No thanks.

[chungusamongus]

That's circular reasoning

[thatjoeoverthr]

It’s not. It’s very simple, but you like to say “circular reasoning”. Maybe you heard it in debate class. There is unlimited slop. I decide what to read _without reading it_. So do you. I have deemed this unworthy. It’s more fun to insult it than to read it. Every day is a gift.

[bookofjoe]

>It’s more fun to insult it than to read it.

That belongs in the HN Hall of Fame

[thatjoeoverthr]

Thanks!

[chungusamongus]

Really? It just seems aggressively stupid.

[chungusamongus]

It is circular. The conclusion of your argument is included in the premises. Textbook begging the question, which is circular reasoning.

"Slop" existed before AI. Just because LLMs were involved in the writing of a text does not make it inherently "slop." You're just lazy.

Everyday is a gift, and yet you waste it getting weirdly defensive about your choices? Someone who is secure about this sort of thing doesn't feel the need to explain themselves.