One of the most tiring and depressing developments of 2026 is that nowadays, every single discussion relating to every single blog post out there degenerates into a "This is AI slop" accusation fest.
I would be a huge friend of introducing a new rule on the Hacker News that whoever accuses others of using AI and cannot support his accusation by something substantial, gets permabanned.
Every single post made prior to ChatGPT has a very strong irreverent sense of humour as well as specific Chinese-English phrases. If you speak to Chinese migrants/colleagues/suppliers you'll recognise it immediately:
In that case, simply vote the submission down; that won't clutter the discussion for other forists who want to talk about the actual content. I think this is what the voting system is fundamentally for; we don't have to, and probably shouldn't, justify our votes aloud.
This is not AI
The headings style wasn't an immediate giveaway to you? The rules of three in every. short. staccato. paragraph? The X, not Y?
The author's writing is wildly different pre-AI.
For me it was "There’s a clean exception to all of this, and it flips the entire logic." and "here’s the reframe". That's Claude-speak.
You could say it flipped their entire logic. Not that it would make sense. But I groaned reading it.
I reckon the article was edited so I saw a different version. I noticed the HN title and current title differ.
One of the most tiring and depressing developments of 2026 is that nowadays, every single discussion relating to every single blog post out there degenerates into a "This is AI slop" accusation fest.
I would be a huge friend of introducing a new rule on the Hacker News that whoever accuses others of using AI and cannot support his accusation by something substantial, gets permabanned.
The blog goes back to 2007.
Every single post made prior to ChatGPT has a very strong irreverent sense of humour as well as specific Chinese-English phrases. If you speak to Chinese migrants/colleagues/suppliers you'll recognise it immediately:
https://wangcong.org/2009/04/09/got-a-new-job/
https://wangcong.org/2019-03-14-how-to-pretend-to-be-a-linux...
https://wangcong.org/2008/12/25/when-i-was-in-portugal/
Then magically, every single post after the invention of LLMs happens to be structured exactly like the dominant LLM style of the era:
https://wangcong.org/2025-02-27-ebpf-trend-analysis.html
https://wangcong.org/2026-01-13-personal-taste-is-the-moat.h...
https://wangcong.org/2026-06-30-why-i-stopped-arguing-with-p...
Curious how he ignores evidence and instead replies to other comments to make ad-hominem attacks.
2 replies →
I, on the other hand, wouldn't support that because it's too often true that the submission is low value AI output.
In that case, simply vote the submission down; that won't clutter the discussion for other forists who want to talk about the actual content. I think this is what the voting system is fundamentally for; we don't have to, and probably shouldn't, justify our votes aloud.
4 replies →