4 ms·

I am more annoyed by the anti-AI luddites filling the comments with low value complaints than I am by quality content written partially by an LLM. Those low va

I am more annoyed by the anti-AI luddites filling the comments with low value complaints than I am by quality content written partially by an LLM. Those low value complaints add nothing to the conversation, and the content didnt make it to the front page because it was bad. If the sole objection is "AI bad", keep it to yourself....its boring.

heavyset_go 8mo ago
Without engaging in more ad hominem, that are wrong by the way, what's the issue with labeling AI content with what it is?
- bryanlarsen 8mo ago
  It's one thing to have an AI-label. It's another to completely derail a conversation with a likely false AI accusation. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122272 You have to scroll a few pages before the actual article is discussed. "This was LLM generated" is likely to float to the top of an article. That's where the best comments about the article deserve to go, not an off topic comment. An AI label should be much less obtrusive.
  - sowbug 8mo ago
    Join me and downvote them relentlessly.
  - zahlman 8mo ago
    > You have to scroll a few pages before the actual article is discussed. Or you could collapse the one thread containing those comments.
- esseph 8mo ago
  > what's the issue with labeling AI content with what it is 1. Your guess is not always correct 2. Over time, AI content will get harder to guess until it is indistinguishable from human content 3. You're not helping anyone by posting "this is AI". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's not helpful. It just adds to the noise.
  - heavyset_go 8mo ago
    I'm not suggesting anyone post "this is AI", the submitter should vouch that it's AI or eventually get banned for spamming. Ideally there could be a label on the submission that states it's AI
    - esseph 8mo ago
      > Ideally there could be a label on the submission that states it's AI A lot of people tried for #politics and that didn't work. I doubt you'll get #ai.
BalinKing 8mo ago
I think a steelman interpretation of the parent is that entirely LLM-generated projects should be disallowed. There's a lot of submissions on Show HN that seem completely vibe-coded to me (like, including the README), which is a very different situation IMO from someone who simply used Claude to write some—or even most—of the code. When even the human-facing portion of a submission is LLM-generated, it bothers a lot of people (myself included).
- scratchyone 8mo ago
  Agreed. Having some level of human input makes a submission at least meaningful. If the entire repo and all text is generated by an LLM, does it really matter if the human is the one posting the link? It's functionally indistinguishable from automated spam.
ryandrake 8mo ago
In every single article's comments now, there's always someone coming out of the woodwork to post "This article is written by LLM." These comments are about as useless as "The website's color scheme is annoying" and "The website breaks the [back button | scrollbar]." (which, by the way, are not allowed per the HN guidelines[1]) If anything should be banned, it's low-effort "This is AI" commentary. It adds absolute zero to the conversation. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. I'd argue that: whether or not the article (or reply) was written by AI is a tangential annoyance at this point.
- rkomorn 8mo ago
  I very much agree. The number of comments I see complaining about "it's not this, it's that" and other "LLMisms" definitely frustrates me more than the original content.
- tayo42 8mo ago
  I was thinking he same thing but didn't want to post my complaint about other commenters becasue I think that's against the rules too?
  - ryandrake 8mo ago
    I generally don't but I think it's defacto-allowed in these "meta HN rules discussion" threads.
- fubdopsp 8mo ago
  It's much more than a "tangential annoyance" and it adds a lot to the conversation--among other things, it establishes a norm that AI-generated blogspam is, well, spam and unwelcome. Blogging, sharing blog posts, reading them, commenting on them--these are all acts of human communication. Farming any of these steps out to an LLM completely breaks down the social contract involved in participating in an online forum like this. What's the point? It's the exact same effect that's playing out in many other areas where LLMs are encroaching: bypassing the "human effort" step has negative side effects that people who are only looking at the output are ignoring. I actually find your opinion so infuriating that it's taking all my composure to not reply with something nastier. If you guys want to spend your time reading shitty LLM spam posts with shitty LLM comments, why don't you find another site to do it on instead of destroying this one.
fzeroracer 7mo ago
> I am more annoyed by the anti-AI luddites filling the comments with low value complaints than I am by quality content written partially by an LLM. Low value content is still content, written by a human being with a specific point. I would argue that LLM written content is even worse than that, because what value does it add when you or I can just ask the LLM itself for it? Its existence is solely that of regurgitation.

heavyset_go 8mo ago

Without engaging in more ad hominem, that are wrong by the way, what's the issue with labeling AI content with what it is?

bryanlarsen 8mo ago
It's one thing to have an AI-label. It's another to completely derail a conversation with a likely false AI accusation. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122272 You have to scroll a few pages before the actual article is discussed. "This was LLM generated" is likely to float to the top of an article. That's where the best comments about the article deserve to go, not an off topic comment. An AI label should be much less obtrusive.
- sowbug 8mo ago
  Join me and downvote them relentlessly.
- zahlman 8mo ago
  > You have to scroll a few pages before the actual article is discussed. Or you could collapse the one thread containing those comments.
esseph 8mo ago
> what's the issue with labeling AI content with what it is 1. Your guess is not always correct 2. Over time, AI content will get harder to guess until it is indistinguishable from human content 3. You're not helping anyone by posting "this is AI". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's not helpful. It just adds to the noise.
- heavyset_go 8mo ago
  I'm not suggesting anyone post "this is AI", the submitter should vouch that it's AI or eventually get banned for spamming. Ideally there could be a label on the submission that states it's AI
  - esseph 8mo ago
    > Ideally there could be a label on the submission that states it's AI A lot of people tried for #politics and that didn't work. I doubt you'll get #ai.

BalinKing 8mo ago

I think a steelman interpretation of the parent is that entirely LLM-generated projects should be disallowed. There's a lot of submissions on Show HN that seem completely vibe-coded to me (like, including the README), which is a very different situation IMO from someone who simply used Claude to write some—or even most—of the code. When even the human-facing portion of a submission is LLM-generated, it bothers a lot of people (myself included).

scratchyone 8mo ago
Agreed. Having some level of human input makes a submission at least meaningful. If the entire repo and all text is generated by an LLM, does it really matter if the human is the one posting the link? It's functionally indistinguishable from automated spam.

ryandrake 8mo ago

In every single article's comments now, there's always someone coming out of the woodwork to post "This article is written by LLM." These comments are about as useless as "The website's color scheme is annoying" and "The website breaks the [back button | scrollbar]." (which, by the way, are not allowed per the HN guidelines[1]) If anything should be banned, it's low-effort "This is AI" commentary. It adds absolute zero to the conversation. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. I'd argue that: whether or not the article (or reply) was written by AI is a tangential annoyance at this point.

rkomorn 8mo ago
I very much agree. The number of comments I see complaining about "it's not this, it's that" and other "LLMisms" definitely frustrates me more than the original content.
tayo42 8mo ago
I was thinking he same thing but didn't want to post my complaint about other commenters becasue I think that's against the rules too?
- ryandrake 8mo ago
  I generally don't but I think it's defacto-allowed in these "meta HN rules discussion" threads.
fubdopsp 8mo ago
It's much more than a "tangential annoyance" and it adds a lot to the conversation--among other things, it establishes a norm that AI-generated blogspam is, well, spam and unwelcome. Blogging, sharing blog posts, reading them, commenting on them--these are all acts of human communication. Farming any of these steps out to an LLM completely breaks down the social contract involved in participating in an online forum like this. What's the point? It's the exact same effect that's playing out in many other areas where LLMs are encroaching: bypassing the "human effort" step has negative side effects that people who are only looking at the output are ignoring. I actually find your opinion so infuriating that it's taking all my composure to not reply with something nastier. If you guys want to spend your time reading shitty LLM spam posts with shitty LLM comments, why don't you find another site to do it on instead of destroying this one.

fzeroracer 7mo ago

> I am more annoyed by the anti-AI luddites filling the comments with low value complaints than I am by quality content written partially by an LLM. Low value content is still content, written by a human being with a specific point. I would argue that LLM written content is even worse than that, because what value does it add when you or I can just ask the LLM itself for it? Its existence is solely that of regurgitation.