Comment by asdfsa32
4 hours ago
Please stop using AI to author your articles. It was really hard to read it despite how interesting the topic was. I dropped halfway because it was just too annoying.
4 hours ago
Please stop using AI to author your articles. It was really hard to read it despite how interesting the topic was. I dropped halfway because it was just too annoying.
Yeah seriously. Article becomes unreadable immediately after the intro. I believe this author probably could actually write two years ago, it's a shame people are just giving up on that and choose to turn out stuff like this instead.
I was bothered not so much by the slopful article as by the AI-written text in the dashboard that iKnow produces. I ran the program on my Mac and it did display charts and graphs with names of people and organizations I’ve interacted with over the years, but I couldn’t figure out what it all was supposed to mean.
One example: "323 people, 122 events and other records, 200 employers and 1 stored group — as the store on this Mac links them. Read live just now. Colour is what each node is to you: the stored group in red, family and closeness by iKnow’s rules on the kinship scorecard. Size is how many rows in the store name it."
Claude etc. can be prompted to produce clearer explanations than that.
My bad. In my defense, only the technical parts are AI. But, thanks for the feedback; I thought I had unsloped it enough...
It's not possible to un-AI text, only replace it wholesale.
Suggestion for next time: "Review my prose for accuracy, grammar, appropriate strength of claims, etc. Flag any issues for my attention. Do not provide text; this work should not contain any AI-written content." That'll turn it into a very good check that doesn't take your voice away.
[flagged]
It's already technically possible for LLMs to generate all kinds of styles of text. In fact older models are better at it. It's the newer models that are nearly impossible to steer. This makes me less hopeful for the future. There is apparently some incentive for Claude and ChatGPT to lock in these very recognizable patterns.
AI writing is fine in a constrained space.
If you create a strict template, like a PowerPoint deck or tightly formatted report, the LM does a really, really good job. at populating that template with good data.
If you give it an open license to just create stuff, it’s always terrible for the general audience — but it may be fine for you or a small group that is familiar with the subject.
I compare it to fast food. An uneducated teenager is quite capable of putting together a McDonald’s lunch within the constraints of the system. If you let the kid loose in a kitchen designed for trained chefs, the result would not be a good lunch.
>Complaints of AI are like a form of friction that eventually goes away.
This. Already there is evolution in AI-related comments here.
For example, a year ago they often featured remarks like "I know AI when I see it: here are unmistakeable 'tells.'"
Then there would be a lively back-and-forth about the validity of the stated giveaways.
Such "How I know it's AI"-type comments no longer appear.
3 replies →
[flagged]
3 replies →
It is funny to me how slop enthusiasts argue from the past and the future to deny the present state.
"Slop is here to stay so you better get used to it because slop is inevitable and you will be left behind."
It is both already a cemented permanent presence and destined to arrive by an unbreakable prophecy at a date TBD.
4 replies →
> In my defense, only the technical parts are AI.
A defense would be "I just used it for spellchecking" not "I just used it for the meat and the important parts people care about, the rest is mine!"
Yes, that was a weird defense; essentially, he used it for the actual interesting parts of the article.
So most of it?
You can’t unslop A.I. prose. Once it’s written, the content is poisoned.
“Sure there was a turd in the punch bowl but I did my best to remove it, so you should be able to drink it.”
Nope.
And the technical parts are what matter, saying you did that with A.I. tells me “I don’t care about this part” so what the heck are we even doing here?
Interesting for me it's the opposite. I care about this so I let AI do it since LLM are better writers than the majority of people. I'm not so arrogant to think I'm a writer of that caliber.
2 replies →
So only the parts that matter, you ai slopped. Great work.
I disagree. Hand-authored articles can be slop too. This research is great, and your subjective feelings about word cadence don't affect the information. I guarantee you read AI output every day and don't know it.
Hand-authored engagement or clout (LinkedIn) farming articles and corporate press releases are usually slop, most others aren't. I'd be surprised if corporate press releases today weren't largely AI-written - no one would know the difference.
The criticism can be restated, then, as “you used AI to write it, and unlike others who use AI to write things, you did a bad job directing it and editing the work.”
This comment is not directed at you, but this is the best place I could find to insert my thoughts on this "nO LLm slOP" distraction:
----
The research is jaw-dropping enough for the average reader to comprehend (e.g: I am not a techie, but a former IBEW datacenter wiretwister).
It could be covered in pube-sprinkled-turds and would still be worth reading.
To me the "slopLOL" crew is akin to people who'll take their time to correct others' their/they're/there usage:
Just read the fucking sentence (LLMs can and do and aren't so poopy-you-suck-for-being-human).
4 replies →
I second this. Unfortunately you just can’t just “unslop” it, much like you can’t just “shake the dirt away” from food that fell into a bucket of… you get my point, it won’t be good to eat anyway. Bonus additional ironic parallel could magically manifest if you can guess the bucket content.
Anyway, it’s a shame, this could have been excellent work. Instead, I find reading it unpleasant and part of my attention rots away wondering if you even checked what the LLM wrote for you. You probably did, and I could also do it myself, but still…
[flagged]
Why? "There is gravel in the food" is a perfectly valid contribution. You don't need to write a compelling story about it.
Because the article itself is way more interesting than the question of with what style it was written.
9 replies →
> Can we add a rule that if you blame someone for using AI, you _also_ have to bring something interesting to the table?
No.
I agree. One comment constructive is enough. It feels like some guys pushing the topic away.
It annoys me as it takes my attention with them so with all respect: user aharmetz (and others) please keep it in one post that you’d prefer non-AI text. Point.
Thank you.
I’d rather this over the very long tradition in this site if people bellyaching about site design and layout on otherwise u related comment threads
> Can we add a rule that if you blame someone for using AI, you _also_ have to bring something interesting to the table?
Criticism is a valid 'something interesting'. And growing numbers of us also don't want to feed the US mega-companies LLM training sets.
More and more people are keeping human-generated stuff to themselves, cause of that.