Two reasons: 1) English is not my native tongue, 2) I hate LinkedIn article style -> let LLM convert my hadrcore-oldschool style into something like "You won't believe what my grandmother's cat taught me about ..."
I would rather read a non-native speaker write something hardcore-oldschool than read LLM-generated "You won't believe what my grandmother's cat taught me about..." You may get corrections about your English. You may even get complaints (not everyone on HN is nice all the time). But my impression is that you will get fewer complaints than you will from something that "feels" LLM-generated. (Or maybe that's just my personal taste.)
It is considered socially acceptable to just straightforwardly complain about an LLM-written post, while complaints about somebody’s English are usually phrased as constructive feedback. The latter takes more effort and is not as effective as a launching point for a rant, so the former might just be easier to detect based on lines-of-text.
You can use LLMs to check grammar and style and manually go through each suggested correction; it will take more time, but your readers will appreciate the effort and your own voice and style will be there. People get upset by LLM-generated content not because they are against LLMs, but because of the awkward style that is very recognizable and leaves you wondering "If the author couldn't be bothered to write it, why should I bother to read it?"
The AI-written text is junk. It's not doing anybody any good. The reader of your article wants to know who you are and what you think. They can't judge this when your ideas are covered in a layer of AI-generated slime.
Not yet in full, it is ~45% generated.
Two reasons: 1) English is not my native tongue, 2) I hate LinkedIn article style -> let LLM convert my hadrcore-oldschool style into something like "You won't believe what my grandmother's cat taught me about ..."
I would rather read a non-native speaker write something hardcore-oldschool than read LLM-generated "You won't believe what my grandmother's cat taught me about..." You may get corrections about your English. You may even get complaints (not everyone on HN is nice all the time). But my impression is that you will get fewer complaints than you will from something that "feels" LLM-generated. (Or maybe that's just my personal taste.)
It is considered socially acceptable to just straightforwardly complain about an LLM-written post, while complaints about somebody’s English are usually phrased as constructive feedback. The latter takes more effort and is not as effective as a launching point for a rant, so the former might just be easier to detect based on lines-of-text.
What’s wrong with hardcore-oldschool style? Why on earth would you want LinkedIn style?
You can use LLMs to check grammar and style and manually go through each suggested correction; it will take more time, but your readers will appreciate the effort and your own voice and style will be there. People get upset by LLM-generated content not because they are against LLMs, but because of the awkward style that is very recognizable and leaves you wondering "If the author couldn't be bothered to write it, why should I bother to read it?"
Some folks get very annoyed by the whiff of LLMs, and will complain loudly. I guess people who aren’t annoyed have no reason to post about it, though.
Perhaps if you post your oldschool notes and their LLMified version and see which rises to the top, haha.
The AI-written text is junk. It's not doing anybody any good. The reader of your article wants to know who you are and what you think. They can't judge this when your ideas are covered in a layer of AI-generated slime.
Absolutely right. Kinda sad that this format is frowned upon now. I like data-rich articles without SEO fluff.
It was fun to read though, it flows oddly but it works. Great case study of appropriate AI use!