← Back to context

Comment by woadwarrior01

5 hours ago

> The measured result is a reference point, not a performance ceiling.

Claude was here.

I am not native, my English is far away from perfect. I am using LLMs for checking my texts or grammar. I always trying to edit it properly, but sometimes I missing parts like that because I don't really have this "language feeling" as natives. Apologies for this

I'm sure it was a chatgptism first, but I wouldn't accuse a western company of distillation.

In all fairness, maybe it's just that they let some post-2022 recipe blogs get into the training runs around ~4.6-4.8 time

Let my karma burn for saying this: Maybe it is time to let this go man. These comments are really the new incarnation of "grammar policing". (1)

They don't add anything of value, did the author use an LLM to fix his prose but no useless slop was added in the process: who cares ? Is the article useless slop: fine, downvote it to oblivion.

(1) For those not old enough to remember that wonderful practice please use your nearest LLM to find out or, you know, visit a library and do your own research.

  • Thank you! Text is not the main part of this repo. The main part is the technology and the list of experiments (and some useful knowledge I got from this project, haha). I have always been bad at writing or editing text (in both my native language and English), but without text it is impossible to share this project online.

    Text was the last and most difficult part for me. It is not perfect (and this project is not perfect as well), but I believe it does the job of communicating my ideas

  • Why would you want to signal low effort for your writing and the related project?

    • It's not low effort. The author had to write in English, not their native, and then used LLM to polish it. The sentence itself conveyed a real point. They cared how their article came across. That's much more effort than the boring "Claude was here" comment that took a second to write but costs real energy to appear, and once again spurred a worthless debate.

      Let it go FFS.

  • I am with you in principle.

    There is 0 wrong with using AI to write a draft.

    However catching the glaring LLMisms shows that the person did a pass and tried to edit the obvious LLMisms.

    For me, unprocessed AI output is perfectly fine as the means to the end, but not as a final output.

  • > Is the article useless slop: fine, downvote it to oblivion.

    You can’t downvote submissions on HN, only flag them. Identifying when text was written by LLMs is a useful signal. Maybe you don’t like these repeated comments, but I’d bet the people making them hate even more that they feel they wasted their time reading it.

    • This attitude will just cause people to write the same thing with AI and then ask it to strip out all the tells. I found it works just fine, but then you push usage underground, making it harder to detect, which isn't in your best interest, assuming you want to be able to detect and avoid low-effort writing.