Comment by relevant_stats
6 days ago
Yay, another mostly AI authored piece with vibe-coded aesthetics.
Some will say that I should 'judge the idea, not the form'.
But if the author didn't find enough strength to write alone a short ~700 words summary about his work, it means he himself isn't that interested or enthusiastic about it. Why should others bother then? Particularly since low-effort like that signals possibility the whole work is superficial and derivative.
Say you have been working on a multi year project writing code and putting in a lot of effort.
If you then use AI to write a product page documentation and proof read it for correctness, would that constitute to signaling that the whole effort is superficial?
Some work may be left to AI while you focus on the more important aspects of the work.
Surprisingly people have got it completely backwards where they want AI to generate code and humans to write documentation.
> If you then use AI to write a product page documentation and proof read it for correctness, would that constitute to signaling that the whole effort is superficial?
It would constitute signalling possibility the whole effort is superficial.
Look around at the amount of slop that is thrown out there using low-effort methods.
I haven't order the work that is being presented here, I'm in no need to guarantee its correctness. I'm only bystander whose attention the OP is trying to grab by posting it on the HN. I don't know if his project is multi year or only multi prompt. The burden of proof lays on him to show he is not one of those another guys who hide emptiness behind AI generated text. Earlier the grammatically correct and carefully laid out blog post was in itself a proof that at least some effort was exerted. Now that important signal is worthless and when it's clearly written by AI it becomes an anti-signal.
At least according to me, because the front page of the last year shows surprisingly big number people love superficial slop.
I'll reiterate, I don't know if the work here is legit or not (and after seeing that ai documentation I have no desire to check that). Demanding from the reader to carefully look past the generated documentation and meticulously analyse the actual content is more time consuming than before and opens the gates for AI slop.
And that attitude also makes people who are not experts on the subject more defenceless against hoaxes and deceit. If both frauds and legit createor look superficially identical, because they use the same chatbot, then whom should the member of general public trust, eh?
> It would constitute signalling possibility the whole effort is superficial
Our company has been developing many core projects for years and one among them is our in-house database Dip. Hiring a writer or spending engineer's time on Dip's docs raises operational cost. Mentality like this gets a startup killed.
Dip's code is pure 100% human written and scrutinized by AI where appropriate. Docs are AI generated and we have it proof-read for correctness. Developers care about documentation being correct and vetted by the people who built the system.
Bitching about docs being AI slop is nothing but virtue signaling.
2 replies →
I thought it was interesting.
so did I, that's why I clicked.
[dead]
> I'm judging the ideas in your post, not its form.
and simultaneously you write that 'my form is lackluster' and that 'an LLM could have written your comment and improved its form without losing anything distinctive'. We are having ourselves a small contradiction, aren't we.
Be my guest, enjoy chatbot writing and drowning in slop. But don't encroach upon my freedom to protest it.
[dead]
2 replies →