{"id":49337154,"user":"Planktonne","time":1786998466,"time_ago":"19 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

You submitted thoughtless pap; of course it didn't get any traction.

Why would you think it would?","comments":[{"id":49337164,"user":"supermatt","time":1786998536,"time_ago":"19 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

[flagged]","dead":true,"comments":[{"id":49337218,"user":"Planktonne","time":1786998734,"time_ago":"19 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> What was thoughtless about it?

You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.","comments":[{"id":49337224,"user":"supermatt","time":1786998766,"time_ago":"19 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

Yes, I did. That was the whole point of the post.","comments":[{"id":49337388,"user":"Planktonne","time":1786999545,"time_ago":"19 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

I believe you believe you did, but the post makes more of a point through its conception than it does through its prose.","comments":[{"id":49337480,"user":"supermatt","time":1786999965,"time_ago":"19 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> I believe you believe you did

Wow, peak ableism. It is a post about how I use an LLM as an accessibility aid for reading and writing. We're not all out here faking creative writing you know...","comments":[{"id":49338082,"user":"Planktonne","time":1787002972,"time_ago":"18 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

I would a thousand times rather read your stream of consciousness, even though I disagree with it, than the bland pulp of the LLM output. In every way that matters, it's stronger and communicating far more.

I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.","comments":[{"id":49341052,"user":"CuriouslyC","time":1787025054,"time_ago":"12 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

You say this, but it's likely a lie. Maybe not for you, but for every N people like you that say it, a high percentage of them are lying. There's research on people's preference for AI generated content over human content when the provenance of the content is blind, which flips on its head when provenance is not blind. The truth is the actual "art" never mattered, most people are living in Plato's cave and they're scraping and clawing for some shred of identity and sense of belonging, and being part of the anti-AI clique gives them that. That's how we get things like Jackson Pollock and bananas duct-taped to cardboard being held up as some kind of achievement.","comments":[{"id":49342912,"user":"Planktonne","time":1787041224,"time_ago":"8 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> people's preference for AI generated content over human content when the provenance of the content is blind, which flips on its head when provenance is not blind

I don't think this shows what you think it shows. AI output (in short clumps) looks like human output; it's designed to do that. Naturally people will sometimes prefer it to other stuff that looks like human output, but crucially this shifts when they realise they're not actually being communicated with.","comments":[{"id":49343142,"user":"supermatt","time":1787043538,"time_ago":"7 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> this shifts when they realise

I think this is pretty much is what they were saying about the provenance being blind. If you are able to deduce the LLM usage through the long-form text then that removes the blindness and objectivity.

I wonder if you view adversarially humanised LLM-generated content in the same light as that which hasn't been obfuscated. I recall seeing some paper with examples posted here a few months ago, where I (and the participants in the study) literally couldn't tell the difference between them and human writing. I have considered using humanisation myself but there is both less control over the output and it (obviously) loses the LLM-like structure that I find so easy to read - and is therefore antithesis to my own objectives.","comments":[],"comments_count":0,"level":8,"url":"item?id=49343142"}],"comments_count":1,"level":7,"url":"item?id=49342912"}],"comments_count":2,"level":6,"url":"item?id=49341052"},{"id":49338689,"user":"supermatt","time":1787006652,"time_ago":"17 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> I don't agree that it's ableism to believe that you are far more worth talking to than a machine regurgitating attenuated averages.

Straw man. That literally wasn't what you said. You dismissed what I wrote as thoughtless. It wasn't about disagreement it was purely invalidation.","comments":[{"id":49339083,"user":"Planktonne","time":1787009220,"time_ago":"16 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

I think you're conflating a couple of different things here.

1. I do disagree with your position in both the prompt and the output; I don't think you're correct. That doesn't mean I don't think you're worth talking to.

2. I do think the output was thoughtless; there is thought evident in the prompt, but then you passed it through a blandifying filter that took it out. You made your contribution less valuable and less valid, removing intention. That's thoughtless.

You do not need a filter; it does not make your writing better, it makes it more pallid.","comments":[{"id":49339339,"user":"supermatt","time":1787010976,"time_ago":"16 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

I had 3 main positions - are you disagreeing with them all? You have not directly engaged with any of them.

  1) Content shouldn't be judged solely on the use of an LLM.\n  2) There is a distinction between slop and assisted authorship.\n  3) LLMs can be valuable accessibility tools.\n

\nYou are now saying that the OUTPUT was thoughtless, whereas before you said that "I" had not put meaningful thought into it. Those are different claims.

As for the output, I regenerated it until I was happy that it communicated my position effectively. That in itself requires both thought and intention.

You may prefer my unedited prose, but your preference doesn't make either my input or my editorial choices thoughtless.","comments":[{"id":49339529,"user":"Planktonne","time":1787012366,"time_ago":"16 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> are you disagreeing with them all

Yes. I think an LLM can be useful for trivial or functional tasks, but for expressing complex positions, it's worse than useless. It's absolutely valid to dismiss LLM-generated prose, and people who who think they're doing 'assisted authorship' tend to be mistaken.

I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.","comments":[{"id":49339718,"user":"supermatt","time":1787013897,"time_ago":"15 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> Yes

Well you are of course entitled to disagree.

> I'm not saying you are incapable of thought; I'm saying that you've abdicated that by transmitting through an LLM.

What you actually said was that I "didn't put any meaningful thought into it". Thats the INPUT, not OUTPUT. Anyway. I think we're as far as we are going to get with this "discussion". Have a good evening!","comments":[{"id":49340180,"user":"simoncion","time":1787017993,"time_ago":"14 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> What you actually said was that I "didn't put any meaningful thought into it".

What he literally said was [0][1]

  You submitted thoughtless pap; of course it didn't get any traction.\n  ...\n  > What was thoughtless about it?\n  \n  You didn't put any meaningful thought into it.\n

\n> Thats the INPUT, not OUTPUT.

You didn't submit the input, you submitted the output. In actual fact, Planktonne asserted that the input that you did not publish would have been much more strongly preferred to the output that you did publish: [2]

  I would a thousand times rather read your stream of consciousness, even though I disagree with it, than the bland pulp of the LLM output. In every way that matters, it's stronger and communicating far more.\n

\n[0] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49337154>

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49337218>

[2] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49338082>","comments":[{"id":49341247,"user":"supermatt","time":1787027221,"time_ago":"11 hours ago","type":"comment","content":"

> You didn't submit the input, you submitted the output

I submit BOTH the input AND the output - that was the ENTIRE point of the post.

Honestly, I beat myself up for years over having a reading disability - whereas it’s evident some of you don’t even make the effort to read yet still feel they have something to say.","comments":[],"comments_count":0,"level":12,"url":"item?id=49341247"}],"comments_count":1,"level":11,"url":"item?id=49340180"}],"comments_count":2,"level":10,"url":"item?id=49339718"}],"comments_count":3,"level":9,"url":"item?id=49339529"}],"comments_count":4,"level":8,"url":"item?id=49339339"}],"comments_count":5,"level":7,"url":"item?id=49339083"}],"comments_count":6,"level":6,"url":"item?id=49338689"}],"comments_count":10,"level":5,"url":"item?id=49338082"}],"comments_count":11,"level":4,"url":"item?id=49337480"}],"comments_count":12,"level":3,"url":"item?id=49337388"}],"comments_count":13,"level":2,"url":"item?id=49337224"}],"comments_count":14,"level":1,"url":"item?id=49337218"}],"comments_count":15,"level":0,"url":"item?id=49337164"}],"comments_count":16,"url":"item?id=49337154"}

Comment by Planktonne