4 ms·

Honest question: approx what percent of the post was human vs machine written?

by meeech 1y ago

diwank 1y ago
I’d say around ~40% me, the ideating, editing, citations, and images are all mine; rest Opus 4 :) I typically try to also include the original Claude chat’s link in the post but it seems like Claude doesn’t allow sharing chats with deep research used in them. Update: here’s an older chatgpt conversation while preparing this: https://chatgpt.com/share/6844eaae-07d0-8001-a7f7-e532d63bf8a3 https://chatgpt.com/share/6844eaae-07d0-8001-a7f7-e532d63bf8...
- GiorgioG 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - diwank 1y ago
    I don’t understand why not. I’m not a natural prose writer, but (I felt that) these ideas were worth putting out there. I posted on HN largely to get feedback.
    - climb_stealth 1y ago
      Just want to say that I appreciate you sharing all that and being open about it. As someone who has mostly ignored the AI progression it is interesting to see. And a bit bewildering.
    - malnourish 1y ago
      You used your tools well. The times are adapting and it's best we get on with it. It's the only way we can discover another step-change. I use AI to help craft technical messages to different audiences and get various perspectives on my ideas and questions. It's a tool that's given me more insight into other perspectives than anything else, and it's helped me make some excellent slides. Executives and senior leadership really need things at different levels. They are abstracting domains like we extract functions. Then there are the technical leaders, who this speaks to. I shared this article with my VP and peers. I expect it will be too much for some, but it remains approachable. It's not all roses though, I tried using various LLMs to help me draft a personal message and it left me feeling remarkably conflicted. It was my message, but it lost my voice, even when just used to reach my niece's "audience" . I haven't found out how to use it and still allow for my creative emotional expression. I don't use it for emails, because it still feels professionally dishonest for me; for some reason, presentations don't. I'm bad at them and it helps. One more thing: I instruct LLMs to not let me meander like this.
- meeech 1y ago
  thanks. to be clear, I'm not asking the q to be particularly negative about it. Its more just curiosity, mixed with trade in effort. If you wrote it 100%, I'm more inclined to read the whole thing. vs say now just feeding it back to the GPM to extract the condensed nuggets.
  - ishita159 1y ago
    great tip! will do that to consume ai generated content as well.
- tomhow 1y ago
  Thanks for being transparent about this, but we’re not wanting substantially LLM-generated content on HN. We’ve been asking the community to refrain from publicly accusing authors of posting LLM-generated articles and comments. But the other side of that is that we expect authors to post content thay they’ve created themselves. It’s one thing to use an LLM for proof-reading and editing suggestions, but quite another for “60%” of an article to be LLM-generated. For that reason I’m having to bury the post. Edit: I changed this decision after further information and reflection. See this comment for further details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719
  - diwank 1y ago
    I completely understand. Just to clarify, when I said it was ~40%, I didn’t mean the content was written by Claude/ChatGPT but that I took its help in deep research and writing the first drafts. The ideas, all of the code examples, the original CLAUDE.md files, the images, citations, etc are all mine.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      Ok, sure, these things are hard to quantify. The main issue is that we can't ask the community to refrain from accusing authors of publishing AI-generated content if people really are publishing content that is obviously AI-generated. What matters to us is not how much AI was used to write an article, but rather how much the audience finds that the article satisfies intellectual curiosity. If the audience can sense that the article is generated, they lose trust in the content and the author, and also lose trust in HN as a place they can visit to find high-quality content. Edit: On reflection, given your explanation of your use of AI and given another comment [1] I replied to below, I don't think this post is disqualified after all. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719
      - diwank 1y ago
        I appreciate this :)
  - 1y ago
tomhow 1y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44213763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44213763 and marked it off-topic.

Honest question: approx what percent of the post was human vs machine written?

by meeech 1y ago

Honest question: approx what percent of the post was human vs machine written?

I’d say around ~40% me, the ideating, editing, citations, and images are all mine; rest Opus 4 :) I typically try to also include the original Claude chat’s link in the post but it seems like Claude doesn’t allow sharing chats with deep research used in them. Update: here’s an older chatgpt conversation while preparing this: https://chatgpt.com/share/6844eaae-07d0-8001-a7f7-e532d63bf8a3 https://chatgpt.com/share/6844eaae-07d0-8001-a7f7-e532d63bf8...

GiorgioG 1y ago
[flagged]
- diwank 1y ago
  I don’t understand why not. I’m not a natural prose writer, but (I felt that) these ideas were worth putting out there. I posted on HN largely to get feedback.
  - climb_stealth 1y ago
    Just want to say that I appreciate you sharing all that and being open about it. As someone who has mostly ignored the AI progression it is interesting to see. And a bit bewildering.
  - malnourish 1y ago
    You used your tools well. The times are adapting and it's best we get on with it. It's the only way we can discover another step-change. I use AI to help craft technical messages to different audiences and get various perspectives on my ideas and questions. It's a tool that's given me more insight into other perspectives than anything else, and it's helped me make some excellent slides. Executives and senior leadership really need things at different levels. They are abstracting domains like we extract functions. Then there are the technical leaders, who this speaks to. I shared this article with my VP and peers. I expect it will be too much for some, but it remains approachable. It's not all roses though, I tried using various LLMs to help me draft a personal message and it left me feeling remarkably conflicted. It was my message, but it lost my voice, even when just used to reach my niece's "audience" . I haven't found out how to use it and still allow for my creative emotional expression. I don't use it for emails, because it still feels professionally dishonest for me; for some reason, presentations don't. I'm bad at them and it helps. One more thing: I instruct LLMs to not let me meander like this.
meeech 1y ago
thanks. to be clear, I'm not asking the q to be particularly negative about it. Its more just curiosity, mixed with trade in effort. If you wrote it 100%, I'm more inclined to read the whole thing. vs say now just feeding it back to the GPM to extract the condensed nuggets.
- ishita159 1y ago
  great tip! will do that to consume ai generated content as well.
tomhow 1y ago
Thanks for being transparent about this, but we’re not wanting substantially LLM-generated content on HN. We’ve been asking the community to refrain from publicly accusing authors of posting LLM-generated articles and comments. But the other side of that is that we expect authors to post content thay they’ve created themselves. It’s one thing to use an LLM for proof-reading and editing suggestions, but quite another for “60%” of an article to be LLM-generated. For that reason I’m having to bury the post. Edit: I changed this decision after further information and reflection. See this comment for further details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719
- diwank 1y ago
  I completely understand. Just to clarify, when I said it was ~40%, I didn’t mean the content was written by Claude/ChatGPT but that I took its help in deep research and writing the first drafts. The ideas, all of the code examples, the original CLAUDE.md files, the images, citations, etc are all mine.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    Ok, sure, these things are hard to quantify. The main issue is that we can't ask the community to refrain from accusing authors of publishing AI-generated content if people really are publishing content that is obviously AI-generated. What matters to us is not how much AI was used to write an article, but rather how much the audience finds that the article satisfies intellectual curiosity. If the audience can sense that the article is generated, they lose trust in the content and the author, and also lose trust in HN as a place they can visit to find high-quality content. Edit: On reflection, given your explanation of your use of AI and given another comment [1] I replied to below, I don't think this post is disqualified after all. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44215719
    - diwank 1y ago
      I appreciate this :)
- 1y ago

tomhow 1y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44213763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44213763 and marked it off-topic.