3 ms·
> So the upvotes were for? People getting tricked? Who knows? > Did you even read it? I quit when I figured it was written by an LLM. I'm not interested in r
by Fnoord 7mo ago
> So the upvotes were for?
People getting tricked? Who knows?
> Did you even read it?
I quit when I figured it was written by an LLM. I'm not interested in reading LLM 'content' without it providing a source.
I am willing to generate some of my own sauce with a prompt, and then requesting the sources. That way, I know at least some parameters of the input and output.
But with your article, I do not know which sources were used as reference, I do not know which prompt you used.
As for HN, they're busy with tackling the LLM problem. They know it is a problem.
- mlhpdx 7mo agoAgain, this was novel content. If you find a source of anything similar let me know. I'm belaboring this point for one important reason: content matters. I want to see new thoughts, not repetitive mindless drivel in personal "voice". There has to be a balance.
- seanhunter 7mo agoThe balance at least on this site is strongly in favour of humans writing things. You’re belabouring the point because you don’t believe that by filling the internet with slop you’re doing anything wrong when actually it’s antisocial and wrecks the commons. If you think content matters so much then just invest the time in writing it yourself rather than trying to convince others that it is ok that you didn’t.
- mlhpdx 7mo agoThe pot calling the kettle black, methinks. How are you improving the internet by vilifying new ideas?
- Fnoord 7mo agoOne thing I've seen before is people being upfront about using LLMs (at the top of the content). That way, those who dislike it will feel less tricked.