This blog is an LLM newsletter content factory. It's more obvious in the other articles.
Look at the heading and sub-heading of a post from a couple weeks ago:
> Witnesses Carry Weights: How Reality Gets Computed
> From UFO counsel to neighborhood fear to market pricing—reality emerges through weighted witnessing. A field guide to the computational machinery where intent, energy, and expectations become causal forces.
It even gets into the "recursive protocol" trope that has become a common theme among people think ChatGPT is revealing secrets of the universe to them.
This type of LLM slop has been hitting the page more frequently lately. I assume it's from people upvoting the headline before reading the content.
1/ So far, you've made five comments about this throughout the thread. 2/ I've added an update at the top; pasting it here as well:
"My high school teacher in 2004 accused me of plagiarizing from Wikipedia because my research paper looked "too polished" for something typed on a keyboard instead of handwritten. Twenty years later, HN commenters see clean prose and assume LLM slop. Same discomfort, different decade, identical pattern: people resist leverage they haven't internalized yet.
I use AI tools the way I used spell-check, grammar tools, and search engines before them—as cognitive leverage, not cognitive replacement. The ideas are mine. The arguments are mine. The cultural references, personal stories, and synthesis across domains—all mine. If the output reads coherently, maybe that says more about expectations than about authenticity.
You can call it slop. Or you can engage with the ideas. One takes effort. The other takes a glance at a header image and a decision that polish equals automation. Your choice reveals more about your relationship to technology than mine."
> 1/ So far, you've made five comments about this throughout the thread.
As someone who actually clicks the links and reads the articles, I’m growing frustrated with these AI-written articles wasting my time. The content is typical of ChatGPT style idea expansion where someone puts their “ideas” into an LLM and then has the LLM generate filler content to expand it into a blog post.
I try to bring awareness of the AI generated content so others can avoid wasting their time on it as well. Content like this also gets flagged away from the front page as visitors realize what it is.
Your edited admission of using AI only confirms the accusations.
> I try to bring awareness of the AI generated content so others can avoid wasting their time on it as well.
Thanks. My own AI detection skills aren't always up to par, so I appreciate people calling it out.
Its not "too polished." That's not the criticism.
What ideas does this article contain, beyond the headline?