Let my karma burn for saying this: Maybe it is time to let this go man. These comments are really the new incarnation of "grammar policing". (1)
They don't add anything of value, did the author use an LLM to fix his prose but no useless slop was added in the process: who cares ? Is the article useless slop: fine, downvote it to oblivion.
(1) For those not old enough to remember that wonderful practice please use your nearest LLM to find out or, you know, visit a library and do your own research.
Thank you! Text is not the main part of this repo. The main part is the technology and the list of experiments (and some useful knowledge I got from this project, haha). I have always been bad at writing or editing text (in both my native language and English), but without text it is impossible to share this project online.
Text was the last and most difficult part for me. It is not perfect (and this project is not perfect as well), but I believe it does the job of communicating my ideas
I'm not making any moral judgements based on it, merely observing it.
The criticism is not that it's moralizing, but that it's boring.
Why would you want to signal low effort for your writing and the related project?
It's not low effort. The author had to write in English, not their native, and then used LLM to polish it. The sentence itself conveyed a real point. They cared how their article came across. That's much more effort than the boring "Claude was here" comment that took a second to write but costs real energy to appear, and once again spurred a worthless debate.
Let it go FFS.
The writing is made worse by a specific choice which the commentator identified. That’s actionable feedback.
how is it made worse in this case?
Because it's a strong signal of AI slop. Why put in more work than the "author" did?
If the author generated text that required no effort, and has no understanding of the contents of the material generated, and no self-awareness of their behavior and how the audience will receive it, it definitely doesn't warrant wasting a single second reading it.
Now, granted, maybe they did review it, maybe they did understand it, maybe they did know how it would be received and merely made a mistake, but how are we to know? It quacks like a duck.
The term "AI slop" is thought-terminating. A more nuanced approach: read it and decide for yourself on merits, rather than vibes.
Saying that something is thought terminating is thought terminating, it's the laziest "I win" bullshit approach ever. A more nuanced approach: don't produce slop and people won't dismiss it as lazy bullshit either.
I am with you in principle.
There is 0 wrong with using AI to write a draft.
However catching the glaring LLMisms shows that the person did a pass and tried to edit the obvious LLMisms.
For me, unprocessed AI output is perfectly fine as the means to the end, but not as a final output.
> Is the article useless slop: fine, downvote it to oblivion.
You can’t downvote submissions on HN, only flag them. Identifying when text was written by LLMs is a useful signal. Maybe you don’t like these repeated comments, but I’d bet the people making them hate even more that they feel they wasted their time reading it.
This attitude will just cause people to write the same thing with AI and then ask it to strip out all the tells. I found it works just fine, but then you push usage underground, making it harder to detect, which isn't in your best interest, assuming you want to be able to detect and avoid low-effort writing.
That argument has been repeated ad nauseam, yet here we are, tells still abound. As if there weren’t people already trying to hide it, or if the model owners weren’t trying to do it either. Of course you can’t just tell it to not use tells and have it work flawlessly, just like you can’t tell it to not hallucinate and have it just be factual. The more you want to hide it the more effort you need.