Why is it stupid to flag genuinely LLM-written content? It might've been thought out by a human, but the final version is clearly LLM-written or extremely heavily LLM-edited.
Why is it stupid to flag genuinely LLM-written content? It might've been thought out by a human, but the final version is clearly LLM-written or extremely heavily LLM-edited.
HN guidelines ask you to not do this.
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
While few read them, it might be helpful if @dang threw in the ", or LLM generated content".
HN guidelines also say that HN is for conversation between humans.
If we are having a conversation with the author through their article, then the prose should be human too. :^)
The 'humans' guidelines are under Comments, not Posts. ;-)
It's mostly boring. About 50% of comments of HN are about this at the moment, drowning out actual discussion.
If someone writes an interesting article using LLM, I don't mind.