Comment by 0xbadcafebee
3 days ago
Say they used AI to write it, it came out bad, and they published it anyway. They had the opportunity to "make it better" before publishing, but didn't. The only conclusion for this is, they just aren't good at writing. So whether AI is used or not, it'll suck either way. So there's no need to complain about the AI.
It's like complaining that somebody typed a crappy letter rather than hand-wrote it. Either way the letter's gonna suck, so why complain that it was typed?
Compared to human bad writing, AI writing tends to suck more verbosely and in exciting new ways (e.g. by introducing factual errors).
> AI writing tends to suck more verbosely
So, it's the style you oppose, the way a grammar nazi complains about "improper" English
> and in exciting new ways (e.g. by introducing factual errors).
Because factually incorrect comments didn't exist before AI?
Your concern is that you read something you don't like, so you pick the lowest-effort criteria to complain about. Speaks more about you than the original commenter.
I'm pretty sure by verbose it's the realization you've wasted precious time reading AI bloat that you'll never get back. On top of that, now you need to reread the text for hallucinations or just take a loss and ignore any conclusions at risk that they came from bad data.
> The only conclusion for this is, they just aren't good at writing.
Not true. It's likely an effort issue in that situation.
And that kind of effort issue is good to call out, because it compounds the low quality.
I don't know if you're new to the internet, but low-effort comments have existed before AI, and will continue to exist regardless of AI.