[john_strinlai]

>and they didn't know any better.

i think an "astrophysicist at Harvard's Black Hole Initiative studying quasars and black hole environments" who "work[s] with raytracing/radiative transfer simulations professionally"probably has a decent understanding of what's going on...

[fwip]

You'd think, and yet, they happily slapped the Harvard BHI name on something that doesn't do what it says on the tin. I think ignorance is preferable to deliberate deception, so I assumed ignorance.

[john_strinlai]

i think they've made some decently reasonable comments explaining their choices, whether you agree or not, and coming in with a shallow dismissal solely consisting of "llm garbage, must be an idiot" is a pretty shitty thing to do (let alone specifically against the rules).

20k's comments open up conversation and engage with the content. yours is just boring, encourages no conversation, and is basically a copy/paste of thousands of other worthless comments. the only thing your comment accomplishes is making hn a worse place.

[fwip]

Well, I think the tide of LLM flotsam inundating the submissions makes HN a worse place. So I'll keep on complaining, and you can downvote me about it.

[john_strinlai]

>Well, I think the tide of LLM flotsam inundating the submissions makes HN a worse place.

writing the 1000th "llm garbage is bad" comment of the day is your solution? im not sure i understand the logic, despite agreeing with the premise.

[fwip]

At time of writing, it was the only one on this thread that pointed out that the code was LLM-written.