It's like the saying beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone. Bad AI writing makes an article "unreadable" - you'd have to force yourself to read it, and people don't get paid for reading stuff on HN. The HN value of an unpleasant to read article is basically zero.
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.
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.
It's like the saying beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone. Bad AI writing makes an article "unreadable" - you'd have to force yourself to read it, and people don't get paid for reading stuff on HN. The HN value of an unpleasant to read article is basically zero.
7 replies →
Its interestingness is zero if it’s so aggravating to read that you just give up.
> 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.