4 ms·

> This isn’t a todo list with hardcoded arrays. It’s a real app with database persistence, complex state management, and the kind of interactions you’d actually

> This isn’t a todo list with hardcoded arrays. It’s a real app with database persistence, complex state management, and the kind of interactions you’d actually build for a real product. Can you also tell ChatGPT to fix the layout so the table just above this message is fully visible without horizontal scrolling?

sunaookami 1y ago
Yeah the writing is obvious ChatGPT-slop sadly. Edit: Related post on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069
- lorenstewart 1y ago
  Jeez! Y'all are quite harsh. I wrote this in sections and then tried to stitch it all together. I did my best to remove repetition, but overall it's my writing edited with the help of AI to moderate some of my personal biases. The value here is both checking out the code (written by me with the help of the maintainers of each framework) as well as tables for lighthouse scores and bundle sizes. I personally think the most important parts of the post are these two related parts: (1) the technofeudalism section (2) developing lightweight apps so a business does not feel the need to have a separate native codebase along with a specialized native team ($$$). I was hoping this post was a gift to many people by doing all this work for y'all, or at least providing a foundation from which you can fork and modify for your own use. It is an open question for everyone if start up time on cellular is something you need to worry about. All the other non-sense here misses the point.
- lukan 1y ago
  Can you guys share actual errors in the article, that indicate real slop? On first glance it seems very legit and personally I would be very hesistant judging something GPT slop based on some writing style.
  - xnorswap 1y ago
    How about this? >> Marko delivers 12.6 kB raw (6.8 kB compressed). Next.js ships 497.8 kB raw (154.5 kB compressed). That’s a 39x difference in raw size that translates to real seconds on cellular networks. Sorry, it isn't 2006, cellular networks aren't spending "seconds" in the difference between 13kB and 500kB. Payload size can matter, but it's complete nonsense that 500kB would translate to "real seconds". Just spotted this section: >> The real-world cost: A 113 kB difference at 3G speeds (750 kbps) means 1.2 seconds for download plus 500ms to 1s for parse/execution on mobile CPUs. Total: 1.5 to 2 seconds slower between frameworks. 3G is literally being decommissioned, and 3G isn't 750kbps, it's significantly faster than that. > On first glance it seems very legit Yes, that's exactly the danger of AI slop. It's very plausible, very slick and very easy to digest. It also frequently contains unchecked errors without any strong signals that would traditionally go along with that.
    - lorenstewart 1y ago
      I don't really know what to say except that you're wrong here. There are many studies out there about loading time affecting conversions/sales. I link to the most recent study done by Speed Curve about the damage slow loading apps do to business metrics. Not wanting to believe something is very different from the thing being untrue. The differences between 13kB and 500kB are quite real and quite measurable.
      - lorenstewart 1y ago
        Related: 3G === spotty 4G (and you know from your own experience this is true)
    - mcintyre1994 1y ago
      In the summary at the top they also use a different smallest compressed size: "The real differentiator? Bundle sizes range from 28.8 kB to 176.3 kB compressed." That's why I stopped reading at your first quote, it didn't fit with the summary and there's no point reading a bunch of numbers and wondering which are made up.
- gr4vityWall 1y ago
  The user who posted that also post this thread's link yesterday, as well as many others. The account seems to be karma farming with AI-generated articles. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45724022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45724022
efilife 1y ago
Also > This isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s technofeudalism. There are so many of these in the article. It's like a spit to the face
- yuvadam 1y ago
  Come full circle by feeding the article back to your favorite LLM and ask it to TL;DR it for you.
istrice 1y ago
[flagged]
- bradley13 1y ago
  [flagged]
- imiric 1y ago
  For better or worse, this type of writing (and coding, and ...) is here to stay. We can dismiss it on the basis of "slop", but that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. The reality is that pretty much everyone will rely on these tools, and it would be more beneficial for the audience to discern good content vs bad content, over whether it was machine-generated or not. In fact, playing devil's advocate, it may have some benefits as well. For many people the content might not be in their first language, so the tools help with improving grammar, fixing typos, etc. They're the same assistive writing tools we've had for decades, but far, far, better. This makes the content much clearer and easier to read. The style of the content can always be changed in seconds, so if a certain cadence bothers the author, that can be easily changed. And, personally, I enjoy the privacy aspect. It's long been possible to identify the author of written text simply by their language, style, etc. These tools can make this more difficult, preserving the anonimity of the author. Or they can mimic the author's style, if instructed to do so. These are all powerful features. To be clear: I can't stand "AI slop" either. I don't like that it replaces the humanity and personality of the author with something that tries to mimic it. But we should learn to accept it and see beyond it. So the main question is: is the content of this article worthless? Or is it worth reading despite of it being machine-generated? Hell, if it bothers you that much, ask your favorite LLM to summarize it for you, or rewrite it in any style you like. :)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- Biganon 1y ago
  English is not my native language, and I fail to understand what you mean. What's wrong, or even special, about the sentence you're quoting?
boutell 1y ago
Not sure why so much love for the idea the article is slop. I suffer through slop regularly and this article didn't press that button for me at all.

sunaookami 1y ago

Yeah the writing is obvious ChatGPT-slop sadly. Edit: Related post on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45722069

lorenstewart 1y ago
Jeez! Y'all are quite harsh. I wrote this in sections and then tried to stitch it all together. I did my best to remove repetition, but overall it's my writing edited with the help of AI to moderate some of my personal biases. The value here is both checking out the code (written by me with the help of the maintainers of each framework) as well as tables for lighthouse scores and bundle sizes. I personally think the most important parts of the post are these two related parts: (1) the technofeudalism section (2) developing lightweight apps so a business does not feel the need to have a separate native codebase along with a specialized native team ($$$). I was hoping this post was a gift to many people by doing all this work for y'all, or at least providing a foundation from which you can fork and modify for your own use. It is an open question for everyone if start up time on cellular is something you need to worry about. All the other non-sense here misses the point.
lukan 1y ago
Can you guys share actual errors in the article, that indicate real slop? On first glance it seems very legit and personally I would be very hesistant judging something GPT slop based on some writing style.
- xnorswap 1y ago
  How about this? >> Marko delivers 12.6 kB raw (6.8 kB compressed). Next.js ships 497.8 kB raw (154.5 kB compressed). That’s a 39x difference in raw size that translates to real seconds on cellular networks. Sorry, it isn't 2006, cellular networks aren't spending "seconds" in the difference between 13kB and 500kB. Payload size can matter, but it's complete nonsense that 500kB would translate to "real seconds". Just spotted this section: >> The real-world cost: A 113 kB difference at 3G speeds (750 kbps) means 1.2 seconds for download plus 500ms to 1s for parse/execution on mobile CPUs. Total: 1.5 to 2 seconds slower between frameworks. 3G is literally being decommissioned, and 3G isn't 750kbps, it's significantly faster than that. > On first glance it seems very legit Yes, that's exactly the danger of AI slop. It's very plausible, very slick and very easy to digest. It also frequently contains unchecked errors without any strong signals that would traditionally go along with that.
  - lorenstewart 1y ago
    I don't really know what to say except that you're wrong here. There are many studies out there about loading time affecting conversions/sales. I link to the most recent study done by Speed Curve about the damage slow loading apps do to business metrics. Not wanting to believe something is very different from the thing being untrue. The differences between 13kB and 500kB are quite real and quite measurable.
    - lorenstewart 1y ago
      Related: 3G === spotty 4G (and you know from your own experience this is true)
  - mcintyre1994 1y ago
    In the summary at the top they also use a different smallest compressed size: "The real differentiator? Bundle sizes range from 28.8 kB to 176.3 kB compressed." That's why I stopped reading at your first quote, it didn't fit with the summary and there's no point reading a bunch of numbers and wondering which are made up.
gr4vityWall 1y ago
The user who posted that also post this thread's link yesterday, as well as many others. The account seems to be karma farming with AI-generated articles. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45724022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45724022

efilife 1y ago

Also > This isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s technofeudalism. There are so many of these in the article. It's like a spit to the face

yuvadam 1y ago
Come full circle by feeding the article back to your favorite LLM and ask it to TL;DR it for you.

istrice 1y ago

[flagged]

bradley13 1y ago
[flagged]
imiric 1y ago
For better or worse, this type of writing (and coding, and ...) is here to stay. We can dismiss it on the basis of "slop", but that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. The reality is that pretty much everyone will rely on these tools, and it would be more beneficial for the audience to discern good content vs bad content, over whether it was machine-generated or not. In fact, playing devil's advocate, it may have some benefits as well. For many people the content might not be in their first language, so the tools help with improving grammar, fixing typos, etc. They're the same assistive writing tools we've had for decades, but far, far, better. This makes the content much clearer and easier to read. The style of the content can always be changed in seconds, so if a certain cadence bothers the author, that can be easily changed. And, personally, I enjoy the privacy aspect. It's long been possible to identify the author of written text simply by their language, style, etc. These tools can make this more difficult, preserving the anonimity of the author. Or they can mimic the author's style, if instructed to do so. These are all powerful features. To be clear: I can't stand "AI slop" either. I don't like that it replaces the humanity and personality of the author with something that tries to mimic it. But we should learn to accept it and see beyond it. So the main question is: is the content of this article worthless? Or is it worth reading despite of it being machine-generated? Hell, if it bothers you that much, ask your favorite LLM to summarize it for you, or rewrite it in any style you like. :)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Biganon 1y ago
English is not my native language, and I fail to understand what you mean. What's wrong, or even special, about the sentence you're quoting?

boutell 1y ago

Not sure why so much love for the idea the article is slop. I suffer through slop regularly and this article didn't press that button for me at all.