Comment by magnio
4 hours ago
If you wanna read an article containing essentially the same information without the pesky LLM voice: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history/2025/december/m...
4 hours ago
If you wanna read an article containing essentially the same information without the pesky LLM voice: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history/2025/december/m...
Why would anyone spend the time to read something so long that's been generated by an LLM? The topic seems super interesting otherwise and would benefit from the real human voice. OP, can you elaborate on why you decided to go this direction?
because it is a propaganda piece
the cheaper it is made, the more effort can be spent elsewhere
> Why would anyone spend the time to read something so long that's been generated by an LLM?
What diference does it make as long as the content is interesting and the tone not grating?
It's possible for a human being to use an LLM but guide it to a well-written piece that's worth consuming.
The tone is grating. That’s why we notice it.
If the LLM output was indistinguishable from real human text nobody would say anything, because by definition we wouldn’t be able to tell.
Nah, if a human can't be bothered to write it themselves, I can't be bothered to read it.
The kneejerk accusations of LLM even when it passes easily-available tests is intellectually lazy and does not belong on HN.
I think it'd be rather uncharitable to assume this was written by a human:
>The error was not stupidity, corruption, or ideology, but a structural failure of the threat-detection apparatus to model what the asset actually represented.
> The methodology, not just the man
lighten up Francis.
So obviously generated
This is an incredible piece of writing, to accuse it of LLM voice borders on sacrilege
It is LLM with a clever prompt that avoids the most egregious tells (though "load-bearing" appears).
The number of times the article goes on complete tangents, introducing new irrelevant names and the general useless level of detail, all in perfect verbose English points to an LLM. So does the upbeat and persuasive style.
If you write that level of detail, use a historian's style and footnotes. Do not use the synthetic LLM voice that is optimized for rhetoric.
Where the heck did LLMs (Claude in particular) pick up the "load-bearing" tic I wonder? I'm over a half century old and read a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen load-bearing used so much before I noticed Claude using it all the time a few months back.
The thought occurs that some day we'll be nostalgic for the quaint LLM speak of yore.
I don't really think there's a tangential detail that is related to the message. Which one are you referring to?
Also, the upbeat and persuasive style ... is my style kek, is it me being too pushy or?
It’s barely readable. The way it flips back and forth “not this but this” instead of just actually saying anything is maddening.
> Kimball was right at the level he was reading it, but wrong about which decision he was reading
What the fuck does this sentence mean?
Unfortunately there is too much detail here for me to write more candidly.
No worries, I don't mean to disparage your article. At least it avoids some of the most annoying LLMism I have seen, and given its length you must have put some effort into prompting, researching, or editing. Hope you will find your own voice as you write more and more.
Youtube these days is full of probably great and interesting documentaries, where people put a lot of time in, but when I hear these typical LLM narrations I can't make it more then a few seconds in, they are horrible.
1 reply →