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!
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.
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.
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.
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.