4 ms·

Wish there was a bit more technical details in how the prompt iterations looked like. > We didn’t just replace a model. We replaced a process. That line stick

• prasoonds 1y ago
  Right? This one is also very clear ChatGPTese > That’s not a marginal improvement; it’s a different way of building classifiers. They've replaced an em-dash with a semi-colon.
  • klabb3 1y ago
    They are really getting to the heart of the problem!
    • Maxion 1y ago
      You're absolutely right! They didn't just replace an em dash with a colon, they invented a whole new way of speaking. /s if it wasn't obvious
  • notanastronaut 1y ago
    One of the benefits of being immersed in model usage is being able to spot it in the wild from a mile away. People really hate when you catch them doing it and call them out for it.
    • Der_Einzige 1y ago
      And people like you will hate it even more when the normies immunize themselves from being obviously caught by such tells: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061
      • spydum 1y ago
        Ah ha! But now the complete lack of emdash and bullet pointed lists from antislop will be the tell! Riposte!
• ieie3366 1y ago
  [flagged]
  • Aniket-N 1y ago
    The two groups can be different but exist in the same community.
    • drob518 1y ago
      And in fact can intersect.
  • magicalist 1y ago
    > Also HN readers: upvote the most obvious chatgpt slop to the frontpage Eh, this one was interesting as documentation of real work that people were doing over years. You don't get that many blog posts about this sort of effort without, usually, a bunch of self hype (because the company blogging also sells data analysis AI or whatever) that clouds any interesting part of the story. The slop in it is annoying but it's also noise thats relatively easy to filter out in this case
  • Aurornis 1y ago
    I’ve been on HN long enough to know that the upvotes are primarily driven by reactions to the headline. The actual content only gets viewed after upvoting, or often not at all.
  • dwaltrip 1y ago
    Those phrases definitely stick out quite badly. But this post wasn’t pure slop. It had high quality info about a large ML effort inside an old school auto company, which is very interesting. I was just a bit disappointed no one thought to edit those out.
  • nerdponx 1y ago
    If you have genuinely interesting and valuable results to report, but you ask AI to do the final writeup for you and it comes across in that generic AI slop style, is it slop? Kind of a gray area for me. It certainly feels lazy and disrespectful to me as a reader, but on the other hand if they don't spend an afternoon proofreading and revising, maybe they can spend that afternoon instead building stuff. I don't know, our whole concept of the purpose of the written word is falling apart.
• serjester 1y ago
  Seems like a very natural fit for fine tuning - would have loved to see more on the LLM side.
• magicalist 1y ago
  > That line sticks out so much now, and I can't unsee it. I thought maybe they did it on purpose at first, like a cheeky but too subtle joke about LLM usage, but when it happened twice near the end of the post I just acknowledged, yeah, they did the thing. At least it was at the end or I might have stopped reading way earlier.
• nerdponx 1y ago
  It didn't stick out to me because "corporate success story" articles already tend to sound like that, which is at least in part where I imagine the popular LLMs get it from. (The other part being pop nonfiction books.)
• keeda 1y ago
  I dunno, ending with a short, punchy insight is a common way to make an impactful conclusion. It's the equivalent of a "hook" for concluding an article instead of opening. I do it often and see others (e.g. OpEds) use that tactic all the time. I think we're getting into reverse slop discrimination territory now. LLMs have been trained on so much of what we consider "good writing", that actual good writing is now attributed by default to LLMs.