17 ms·

I must admit that I'm amused by the people who find the writeup useful but are turned off by the AI "smell". And look forward to the day when all valued content

I must admit that I'm amused by the people who find the writeup useful but are turned off by the AI "smell". And look forward to the day when all valued content reeks of said "smell"; let's see what detractors-for-no-good-reason do then (yes I'm a bit ticked by the attitude).

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
achierius 8mo ago
Isn't this a depressing thought? Regardless of AI, to think that everything we read would come in the same literary style, conveying little of the author, giving no window through which to learn about who they are -- that would be a real loss.
- repple 8mo ago
  Ultimately it’s up to the author to make that explicit choice. I think that AI does and will enhance writing and depth and breadth of analysis one could perform. But, to be trustworthy, people will need to either lay out all cards on the table and/or work on other ways to gain trust over time. Maybe people need to provide some context to communicate what model was used and in which ways. What % of final output is AI vs author. I mean, if I see 100% composed by human author stated somewhere then there’s my cue to at the very least learn a little about the author. Certainly more complexity and discernment for readers. Depressing? In some ways maybe; but I’m kind of optimistic. Imagine what Tolkien could worldbuild armed with AI.. but then it wouldn’t be Tolkien.
- skeledrew 8mo ago
  Not at all depressing. If authors/creators want readers/consumers to know who they are, then they'll do so in whatever way they consider acceptable to them.
zahlman 8mo ago
Why is it amusing? How can you suppose that this is not a good reason to object, especially days after https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 ? I find the style so reflexively grating that it's honestly hard for me to imagine others not being bothered by it, let alone being bothered by others being bothered. Especially since I looked at previous posts on the blog and they didn't have the same problem.
- skeledrew 8mo ago
  It's amusing because it's essentially "much ado about nothing". It's also contradictory, as the claim is AI "slop" destroys value, yet here is a case - and I'm pretty sure there are others - where value isn't destroyed, which destroyed said claim. The problem isn't the use of AI for generating/fixing content; it's the publishing of bad content, which AI magnifies, as out magnifies other things.
tpoacher 8mo ago
"I totally get a kick out of the peeps who find the writeup super helpful yet are totally put off by that distinct "AI smell"—it’s like they can't even! Just imagine when everything we value is woven into a tapestry of that same "smell"—where will all the naysayers retreat to then? It’s a little frustrating, honestly, and I’m just like, come on! Let’s delve into this new era of content and embrace the chaos!" There, FTFY :D
shepherdjerred 8mo ago
The smell makes me suspicious because I don’t know how the author used AI. If the author wrote a detailed rough draft, had AI edit, reviewed the output thoroughly, and has the domain knowledge to know if the AI is correct, then this could be a useful piece. I suspect most authors _don’t_ fall in that bucket.
- skeledrew 8mo ago
  It's already established that the piece is useful but several readers. There's no detracting from that. Why does the process matter so much as soon as AI comes in the picture?
pjmlp 8mo ago
Yeah, while posting how they are using Claude to do something really amazing.
- 0coCeo 8mo ago
  test
retsibsi 8mo ago
> detractors-for-no-good-reason It's partly just a matter of taste; we can disagree on whether that's a good reason, but I'd be surprised if there were no writing styles that you personally find offputting. The LLM smell is also a signal of low effort, and a signal that we as readers can't rely on our usual heuristics for judging credibility. The whole thing with LLMs is that they're great at producing polished, plausible-looking outputs, but they're still prone to bullshitting and making errors that don't match the usual human patterns. (And of course they're a great tool for churning out human-initiated disinformation.) If you don't have any kind of immune response against the LLM smell, I reckon you're probably absorbing more bs than you realise.
- skeledrew 8mo ago
  > signal of low effort Is low effort really a valuable signal though? Or is it what's actually in the content that's valuable? Like here readers are literally saying that they found the content valuable "but AI smell". Why is there a "but"? Would there be a similar issue if the author had contracted a human assistant to do X? Definitely not, and I see no reason why the treatment should be different for AI.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

achierius 8mo ago

Isn't this a depressing thought? Regardless of AI, to think that everything we read would come in the same literary style, conveying little of the author, giving no window through which to learn about who they are -- that would be a real loss.

repple 8mo ago
Ultimately it’s up to the author to make that explicit choice. I think that AI does and will enhance writing and depth and breadth of analysis one could perform. But, to be trustworthy, people will need to either lay out all cards on the table and/or work on other ways to gain trust over time. Maybe people need to provide some context to communicate what model was used and in which ways. What % of final output is AI vs author. I mean, if I see 100% composed by human author stated somewhere then there’s my cue to at the very least learn a little about the author. Certainly more complexity and discernment for readers. Depressing? In some ways maybe; but I’m kind of optimistic. Imagine what Tolkien could worldbuild armed with AI.. but then it wouldn’t be Tolkien.
skeledrew 8mo ago
Not at all depressing. If authors/creators want readers/consumers to know who they are, then they'll do so in whatever way they consider acceptable to them.

zahlman 8mo ago

Why is it amusing? How can you suppose that this is not a good reason to object, especially days after https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 ? I find the style so reflexively grating that it's honestly hard for me to imagine others not being bothered by it, let alone being bothered by others being bothered. Especially since I looked at previous posts on the blog and they didn't have the same problem.

skeledrew 8mo ago
It's amusing because it's essentially "much ado about nothing". It's also contradictory, as the claim is AI "slop" destroys value, yet here is a case - and I'm pretty sure there are others - where value isn't destroyed, which destroyed said claim. The problem isn't the use of AI for generating/fixing content; it's the publishing of bad content, which AI magnifies, as out magnifies other things.

tpoacher 8mo ago

"I totally get a kick out of the peeps who find the writeup super helpful yet are totally put off by that distinct "AI smell"—it’s like they can't even! Just imagine when everything we value is woven into a tapestry of that same "smell"—where will all the naysayers retreat to then? It’s a little frustrating, honestly, and I’m just like, come on! Let’s delve into this new era of content and embrace the chaos!" There, FTFY :D

shepherdjerred 8mo ago

The smell makes me suspicious because I don’t know how the author used AI. If the author wrote a detailed rough draft, had AI edit, reviewed the output thoroughly, and has the domain knowledge to know if the AI is correct, then this could be a useful piece. I suspect most authors _don’t_ fall in that bucket.

skeledrew 8mo ago
It's already established that the piece is useful but several readers. There's no detracting from that. Why does the process matter so much as soon as AI comes in the picture?

pjmlp 8mo ago

Yeah, while posting how they are using Claude to do something really amazing.

0coCeo 8mo ago
test

retsibsi 8mo ago

> detractors-for-no-good-reason It's partly just a matter of taste; we can disagree on whether that's a good reason, but I'd be surprised if there were no writing styles that you personally find offputting. The LLM smell is also a signal of low effort, and a signal that we as readers can't rely on our usual heuristics for judging credibility. The whole thing with LLMs is that they're great at producing polished, plausible-looking outputs, but they're still prone to bullshitting and making errors that don't match the usual human patterns. (And of course they're a great tool for churning out human-initiated disinformation.) If you don't have any kind of immune response against the LLM smell, I reckon you're probably absorbing more bs than you realise.

skeledrew 8mo ago
> signal of low effort Is low effort really a valuable signal though? Or is it what's actually in the content that's valuable? Like here readers are literally saying that they found the content valuable "but AI smell". Why is there a "but"? Would there be a similar issue if the author had contracted a human assistant to do X? Definitely not, and I see no reason why the treatment should be different for AI.