4 ms·

You either have a writing style that is uncannily similar to what an LLM generates, or this article was substantially written by an LLM. I don't know what it is

by xelaboi 6mo ago

You either have a writing style that is uncannily similar to what an LLM generates, or this article was substantially written by an LLM. I don't know what it is about the style, but I just find it a bit exhausting, like an overfit on "engaging writing" that strips away sincerity.

renewiltord 6mo ago
It’s clearly LLM written but the idea was interesting enough that I read it. I suspect based on username the writer is cleaning up their voice. I think the idea of sharing the raw prompt traces is good. Then I can feed that to an LLM and get the original information prior to expansion.
nonameiguess 6mo ago
Name sounds very likely not an English speaker. And the one reply here to a top-level comment is extremely obvious. I think it's unfortunate that people who write English poorly feel the need to do it, but I get it at least. The person behind this probably has a real interest and knowledge in the space but feels they can't communicate it without assistance. It is too bad, though. People bad at English will themselves be reading this forever now and think this is the way real people write, speak, or are supposed to. It's many things. The relentless ethusiasm about everything. Prefacing any answer to a question with an affirmation that it was a good question first. And yes, sorry, pedants of the web who feel witch-hunted because you knew how to employ keyboard shortcuts and used em-dashes in 2015 and have the receipts to prove it -- you never used 17 in the span of a single page. I think that was the first I can remember using ever and I had to contrive a way to do it where a semi-colon wouldn't clearly work better.
qbane 6mo ago
There is even a table copy-pasted into a paragraph without noticing. > What’s needed is something different: > Requirement ptrace seccomp eBPF Binary rewrite Low overhead per syscall No (~10-20µs) Yes Yes Yes [...]
notepad0x90 6mo ago
I think it's better to just adapt to this. A lot of people write the content their own way, and get AI to rewrite it so that it is more readable, and free from errors. Content over appearance and all. I think the problem is you consider this auto-completion tool insincere. many do as well, because they anthropomorphize LLMs, it feels like a different sentient entity wrote it than the person posting it. but in reality, that isn't the case; it's more like a spellchecker that helped the person communicate their idea. The purpose of language is to communicate meaning and intent, not to sound or feel a particular way, unless you're reading for entertainment or enjoyment. This is the second post I'm commenting on within a span of like 30 minutes where someone did some really good work and shared it, but the top comments are complaining about AI usage. Either LLM-assisted content needs to be banned entirely (might be), or complaining about it should be considered a breach of etiquette at sites like HN that are tech-centric.
- xelaboi 6mo ago
  Appearance and style is content, and it always was. The way you write is fundamentally a part of how a reader interprets meaning and intent. Calling it a spellchecker is simply wrong if you give an LLM some bullet points and then instruct it to write an article. I find it more insincere because it's an extra layer between the author and the reader which substantially affects every aspect of the piece of writing, not just the spelling of individual words, or Microsoft Word nagging you to avoid passive voice. If OP is not a native English speaker and is using an LLM to create a reasonable prose, then it might be the best way for them to try and communicate their ideas. It's probably better than Google translate. It affects how the reader interprets the writing, though. My other point, which I also stand by, is that I find the default writing style of current LLMs exhausting to read. It feels like a college student has submitted an assignment on engaging writing and decided to use every technique they could find in their textbook, because they want to get top marks. It just feels forced to me. -------------------------------- As an example, I asked claude to make my argument more "clear". See how it wrote it: Style isn't separate from content — it is content. The way something is written shapes how a reader interprets its meaning, and that's always been true. Calling an LLM a "spellchecker" only holds if it's catching typos. The moment you hand it bullet points and ask it to produce an article, it's not correcting your writing — it's replacing it. That's a fundamentally different thing. I'll grant one exception: if someone isn't a fluent English speaker and uses an LLM to bridge that gap, that's a legitimate trade-off, even if it still changes how the reader experiences the piece. But my broader complaint stands independent of that debate: current LLMs produce a recognizable, exhausting prose style. Every sentence is engineered to be "engaging." Every paragraph hits the expected beats. It reads like someone who learned to write from a listicle about writing — technically compliant, but hollow. The effort to sound compelling ends up undercutting any sense that a real person with a real perspective is behind it.

by xelaboi 6mo ago

renewiltord 6mo ago

It’s clearly LLM written but the idea was interesting enough that I read it. I suspect based on username the writer is cleaning up their voice. I think the idea of sharing the raw prompt traces is good. Then I can feed that to an LLM and get the original information prior to expansion.

nonameiguess 6mo ago

Name sounds very likely not an English speaker. And the one reply here to a top-level comment is extremely obvious. I think it's unfortunate that people who write English poorly feel the need to do it, but I get it at least. The person behind this probably has a real interest and knowledge in the space but feels they can't communicate it without assistance. It is too bad, though. People bad at English will themselves be reading this forever now and think this is the way real people write, speak, or are supposed to. It's many things. The relentless ethusiasm about everything. Prefacing any answer to a question with an affirmation that it was a good question first. And yes, sorry, pedants of the web who feel witch-hunted because you knew how to employ keyboard shortcuts and used em-dashes in 2015 and have the receipts to prove it -- you never used 17 in the span of a single page. I think that was the first I can remember using ever and I had to contrive a way to do it where a semi-colon wouldn't clearly work better.

qbane 6mo ago

There is even a table copy-pasted into a paragraph without noticing. > What’s needed is something different: > Requirement ptrace seccomp eBPF Binary rewrite Low overhead per syscall No (~10-20µs) Yes Yes Yes [...]

notepad0x90 6mo ago

I think it's better to just adapt to this. A lot of people write the content their own way, and get AI to rewrite it so that it is more readable, and free from errors. Content over appearance and all. I think the problem is you consider this auto-completion tool insincere. many do as well, because they anthropomorphize LLMs, it feels like a different sentient entity wrote it than the person posting it. but in reality, that isn't the case; it's more like a spellchecker that helped the person communicate their idea. The purpose of language is to communicate meaning and intent, not to sound or feel a particular way, unless you're reading for entertainment or enjoyment. This is the second post I'm commenting on within a span of like 30 minutes where someone did some really good work and shared it, but the top comments are complaining about AI usage. Either LLM-assisted content needs to be banned entirely (might be), or complaining about it should be considered a breach of etiquette at sites like HN that are tech-centric.

xelaboi 6mo ago
Appearance and style is content, and it always was. The way you write is fundamentally a part of how a reader interprets meaning and intent. Calling it a spellchecker is simply wrong if you give an LLM some bullet points and then instruct it to write an article. I find it more insincere because it's an extra layer between the author and the reader which substantially affects every aspect of the piece of writing, not just the spelling of individual words, or Microsoft Word nagging you to avoid passive voice. If OP is not a native English speaker and is using an LLM to create a reasonable prose, then it might be the best way for them to try and communicate their ideas. It's probably better than Google translate. It affects how the reader interprets the writing, though. My other point, which I also stand by, is that I find the default writing style of current LLMs exhausting to read. It feels like a college student has submitted an assignment on engaging writing and decided to use every technique they could find in their textbook, because they want to get top marks. It just feels forced to me. -------------------------------- As an example, I asked claude to make my argument more "clear". See how it wrote it: Style isn't separate from content — it is content. The way something is written shapes how a reader interprets its meaning, and that's always been true. Calling an LLM a "spellchecker" only holds if it's catching typos. The moment you hand it bullet points and ask it to produce an article, it's not correcting your writing — it's replacing it. That's a fundamentally different thing. I'll grant one exception: if someone isn't a fluent English speaker and uses an LLM to bridge that gap, that's a legitimate trade-off, even if it still changes how the reader experiences the piece. But my broader complaint stands independent of that debate: current LLMs produce a recognizable, exhausting prose style. Every sentence is engineered to be "engaging." Every paragraph hits the expected beats. It reads like someone who learned to write from a listicle about writing — technically compliant, but hollow. The effort to sound compelling ends up undercutting any sense that a real person with a real perspective is behind it.