3 ms·
Did this 'article' make anyone else's antenna twitch? Firstly, there's something about the combination of saying nothing new and adding very little opinion, pl
by mft_ 3y ago
Did this 'article' make anyone else's antenna twitch?
Firstly, there's something about the combination of saying nothing new and adding very little opinion, plus a few writing/editorial oddities, makes me wonder if this is GPT-generated? Or at best, it's just comms copy from a non-specialist, banging something out in a hurry. (Noting that the author is COO of a 'communication agency'.)
Secondly, given how uninteresting the article to (at least, to a typical HN reader, IMO) why has it popped up onto the front page?
I'm genuinely interested what's going on here - just an anomaly, or HN gaming, or a sign of things to come?
- foul 3y agoIf it's GPT4, it would fool me. It IS bland in tone and quality, but to me it looks like human-generated for voicing over some clickbait Youtube video.
- throwawaaarrgh 3y agoThis is an extremely typical HN article. It's blogspam. The author makes a half-hearted attempt to explain some minor thought they just had and then hopes it gets traction so they can later monetize it. Pump out enough of them and at some point it'll make it to the front page where you can get subscribers. HN upvotes any clickbait headline because strong opinions get traction.
- muzani 3y agoIt's typical HN fodder. It's low quality, but some don't upvote the article, they upvote the headline. It's been 3 hours on one of the slower hours on HN. The algorithm is loosely engagement / time^2, so something that pops up at the right timing can stand out against really good news 14 hours ago. But typically the high comment vs upvote ratio triggers the low quality filter and it's likely to fall off soon.
- lopkeny12ko 3y agoGPT-generated articles are extremely common now. It doesn't surprise me one bit. It's just a cheap way for the "author" to build his online presence with minimum effort.