I think in this day and age people should start assuming content is AI and then working backwards to a place of trust.
For example: Ed Nite says he doesn't want to be a programmer anymore. Who is Ed Nite? Is he even a programmer at all?
As far as I can tell, Ed Nite: Programmer doesn't really exist, must be a pen name. As far as his content, he mostly talks about being a writer and using AI. There's no real technical content to speak of. He doesn't link to a Github or work record. I found a youtube page of his with a single AI video on it from 6 months ago. As far as I can tell Ed Nite was invented 6 months ago to start blogging about blogging, self improvement and AI at mindthenerd.com.
So do I trust him? No. Assume AI and move on.
He's also got several nudges to enter your email and subscribe to his blog. And mentions getting 50+ emails a day that he has to respond to and mentions he uses AI to respond to them. He seems to like blasting people with AI content, and also as this blog post mentions, gets sent a lot of AI content himself. It's kinda weird, why is he doing this lol
Not sure where the “blasting people” take is coming from. I’m not for or against it, people should use whatever tools work for them. I do have a few real concerns, like its ability to convince us so quickly, which is why I wrote about safety and the need for regulation. That doesn’t mean I’m anti-AI. Like any new tech, there’s good and bad. I use it, I write about it, and I share my experiences; that’s all I’m really doing.
He's writing the kind of stuff that might get popular on HN, then posting it here so we go interact with his blog. He'll collect emails and gain a reader base and maybe start a substack or throw up ads on the side.
I could see this kind of AI astroturfing being a real problem communities face in the future, where you just scrape the top posts on a community and then generate blog content related to those, then post your content back at the community.
Rinse and repeat and you don't have to be a programmer anymore.
Funny place to look for people to serve ads to.
oh no! someone's making money, whatever shall we do???
I think people don't object to making money as much as being underhanded about it (trying to bootstrap from zero to money while not making it clear you're currently at zero) and also using AI slop (or slop of any kind) to quickly generate content.
People would respect this more if it was content lovingly generated for years, and then the author went "hey, maybe I can promote this on HN?". But artificially promoting worthless, slop content, is going to generate this reaction.
Hey ModernMech, Ed Nite here. Not AI, just a guy with too much imagination (and yes, a pen name). I’m a real software dev who’s spent years building and supporting B2B platforms as a solo dev. Lately, I’ve been leaning into the creative side, blogging, writing, and soon, YouTube. My ego even likes to think AI sounds like me (wink).
Hi Ed, this is clearly AI generated content: https://mindthenerd.com/the-delegation-paradox-how-letting-g... Not just AI editing for grammar as you tried to say elsewhere. It's not early from your blogging either, it's from 2 weeks ago.
This makes me feel you are not being forthright, and you are trying to take us for fools. What's worse, you are trying to profit off it.
TFA you submitted today tries to hide it better, but there's no reason to be quoting Marcus Aurelius twice in one blog post until you realize they're affiliate links... which is like every link on your blog.
I'm not going to speak for everyone, but personally I'd prefer this style of content not be posted here.
Even some of his HN comments on this page feel AI-generated... for example I see one use of "You're absolutely right", one "You're right", and two "You are right". Meaningless phrases like "in true HN style". And space-filling excessive positivity like "Your comment is appreciated and heard. That’s the beauty of learning new things, you try, you stumble, and you learn from your mistakes."
Even the primary anecdote of the post simply doesn't seem realistic to me. Why would you ask an LLM whether a domain name idea is good or terrible? That's an entirely subjective opinion question with no right or wrong answer! And chatbots are widely known for being sycophantic anyway, so the response will just depend on how the question was framed.
OP, if you're actually writing this stuff entirely by hand, you've internalized AI writing style to a disturbing degree.
I do tend to write more fluff than substance, working on it. Thanks for the comment.
Hey ModernMech, being transparent here and appreciate your take on this. I always start from a blank page and go through several drafts. I do run my raw format through AI to fix flaws and polish grammar, but the ideas, narrative, and structure are mine. If the tool changes the narrative, I don't use it. Simple as that.
For me, AI is sitll a time-saver, like other grammar tools, so I can focus on the message.
I had hoped people would focus more on the message than the craft and tools, but I understand now. Lesson learned, and I’ll keep working on it.
I'm listening to my audience and improving my writing as I chronicle my life experiences.
I don’t use AI to push sales. In fact, I shut down AdSense within minutes of approval because monetizing isn’t my goal right now. Yes, i use affiliate links to books I’ve personally found useful (and love quoting them) and hope others will too, but I’ve been debating removing those as well, the same way I did with ads, if it hurts the reader’s experience. I'm thinking the affiliates don't readers, but I may be wrong.
I’m new to this space and still learning how to be authentic online. This community is actually the only place I share my writing, and as you can see i'm stumbling a lot, but I’m listening, learning, and I genuinely appreciate everyone’s feedback, yours included.
I think we need an AI flag on HN. I’m not here to read AI slop, I can easily generate that myself if I want it.
Can you? I can drive a car, but Michael Schumacher can get an F1 car to go around the track way faster than I could dream of. Have you ever seen a bad interview? and then, have you ever seen a really good one? The questions the interviewer asks is important!
> Michael Schumacher can get an F1 car to go around the track way faster than I could dream of.
Not anymore.
This is not the Schumacher of AI content.
And yes, anyone can generate this kind of AI content nowadays.
If HN is the "track", this post made it to #7
https://hnrankings.info/45481490/
He's Nick Heidfeld to Schumacher's 2006 win.
It's generating buzz alright, but anyone with AI can do it.
Usually this kind of content doesn't reach HN because the antibodies kill it sooner. If you're arguing the antibody-bypassing succeeded here, ok... but that's not a solid defense of AI slop.
Anyone can do slop.
okay, show me yours
I don't like this kind of slop, why would I generate it? Just to win internet points with you, a random stranger?
so, you can't. Contrary to your original claim that "anyone" can, you're unable to.
No, I didn't say I can't. I said anybody can, I just won't because I despise slop. I'm sure there are plenty of things you can do but won't because you're against them.
Twisting my words is against HN guidelines. Please don't.
If we’re citing guidelines, they also discourage shallow dismissals. Dismissing something as “AI slop” doesn’t feel much different. Whatever your opinion of the process, that’s still dismissive. Please don’t.
No, I'm entitled to my opinion, and I was replying to your Schumacher comment.
Please, don't be a troll. Learn to accept disagreement without being snarky or dismissive of other opinions.
An example of trollish behavior is intentionally misrepresenting what I said, like you did above ("so you can't"). I disagreed with you, but didn't twist your words.
PS: you'll note TFA is currently flagged, so it seems enough people on HN agreed with me. I won't say I always agree with flagging, and I also understand that the majority isn't always right -- but in this case, at the very least it shows my opinion wasn't an outlier.
You’re entitled to your opinion, sure. I’m just pointing out that calling something “AI slop” is still a dismissal, not an argument. That kind of shorthand shuts down discussion instead of adding to it.
Well, enough people agreed to flag the article... "AI slop" is a well understood term here, enough that people know what I mean and agreed with it. It carries meaning; I don't need to spell out why it's slop (especially since the author essentially admitted it is, in other words. Paraphrasing someone else in this comments section, "if you can't make the effort to write it, why should I make the effort to read it?").
And you can disagree with my disagreement without resorting to snark.
You think “AI slop” speaks for itself; I think it short-circuits discussion. Different takes, all good. Sorry about the snark.
That's exactly right. Schumacher is human. Good interviewers are human, not LLMs.
I don't know if you missed my point or are ignoring it to win internet points so I'll be more explicit. You, the human (presumably), are the driver and interviewer in this analogy. The LLM is the car or the interviewee. How the blog's operator can operate the machine is different than you or I can.
It's more like a musician "playing" a player piano or a singer performing to a backing track with an auto-tuner or a driver "driving" a self-driving car. The machine is doing all the work, the human is just (at most) prompting it.
Whereas really playing a piano or performing live or driving an F1 car or writing a long essay takes some real effort and talent. That's what makes it interesting.
Before Ai, in the music world, DJs are also "just" playing someone else's song, but it turns out there's a lot of skill and effort involved in being a good DJ.
It's sad that it's come to this. I have zero interest in reading AI slop, and I wonder who does.
To be clear, there was always filler content on the internet, but with AI this is exploding.