They very clearly were making a general claim, and stating their reasons too, rather than insinuating vague nothings like your comment. As I understood it: P

They very clearly were making a general claim, and stating their reasons too, rather than insinuating vague nothings like your comment. As I understood it: Premise 1 : anyone can get an LLM to churn out "content" in minutes. Premise 2 : reading "AI" slop is a poor way to spend one's time. Premise 3 : someone who thinks those images are ok is likely to have a poorly developed capacity to differentiate between actual expertise and confident-sounding blah-blah-ing. Conclusion : abort at the first sign that someone thinks that that vaguely confident-seeming world of half-truths and vibing is in any way acceptable. It's a hard line, but I certainly can see the logic in it. One would be free to make exceptions in certain specific scenarios but the general thrust of the idea is excellent (for people who value their time, and want to read good things rather than feel-good things). Your argument, on the other hand: it got traction on HN, therefore... something. Traction, or viewership, or ability-to-attract-attention, does not equate to value. And yes, I'm stating this as a general truth.