3 ms·

Unfortunately written by an AI - that completely takes the wind out of the content and makes me not even want to read any further. The distinction between “prod

Unfortunately written by an AI - that completely takes the wind out of the content and makes me not even want to read any further. The distinction between “production” and “non-production” is also questionable. For an evaluation, I recommend the following original articles (certainly not AI-generated): - https://sqlite.org/whentouse.html https://sqlite.org/whentouse.html - https://sqlite.org/different.html https://sqlite.org/different.html - https://sqlite.org/quirks.html https://sqlite.org/quirks.html

thunky 2mo ago
[flagged]
rdsubhas 2mo ago
I have to disagree with this as off topic. The blog lists ways to optimize sqlite for production, for those who have already made that choice. But these comment links are about choosing sqlite vs others and differences, which is completely unrelated and unnecessary for those who have already made that choice. I'm seeing a worrying trend on HN. Nearly for all articles, there is one unquantified, unproven comment at the top saying it's 100% AI — no proof, just baseless emotion of what fits the commenter's writing style. This is the new witch hunt, or virtue trolling. I read the original article and to be honest, this off topic comment definitely looks more like an AI troll bot wrote it than the article. The troll bot is instructed to do a google search and put 3 source links — no matter how irrelevant they are. So what is it now — one emotion vs another? If an article has sections and blocks, it's AI. What about infinite poor humans like me who have been writing like this since childhood? Since LLMs were trained on high quality blog posts, we can no longer have posts that fit the pre-AI definition of high quality? The content must be dumbed down with typis and scatter unconventional words, to prove AI trollers that it's not AI? Or a timelapse video of typing the article? Instead how about: if you don't want to read the article because it doesn't fit your personal style expectation — just don't bother commenting? I hope HN would ban AI trolling comments, and discuss substance.
- adhamsalama 2mo ago
  Even your comment looks like it's generated by AI.
  - Defletter 2mo ago
    "You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes." - Maimonides I feel like "this is AI" needs to join the ranks "it's not that deep" and "this is a Wendy's" as an annoying thought-terminating cliche.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      except 99% of AI—written content is spam. If the article was an ad for some company and also made no sense, would you hate on the guy who commented "this is an ad"?
      - Defletter 2mo ago
        Because that's not what happened? What? Neither smartmic's root-level comment or rdsubhas's response mention it being an ad. I was criticising adhamsalama's dismissal of rdsubhas's comment as AI, who also said nothing about it being an ad. I'm so baffled. Can you not see the structure or the content of this thread?
        inigyou 2mo ago
        did you actually read my comment
  - tredre3 2mo ago
    I think this is deliberate to make a point. Even an AI doesn't use that many em dashes. GP wants you to question it as a "haha see? I'm human yet you called me an AI just like I thought!"
    - skavi 2mo ago
persedes 2mo ago
Hope this becomes a cultural norm outside of HN. You can have AI written text that had some actual human effort put into it [1], but sloppy AI written content should only be meant for anohter AI consumers and not humans. 1 - https://www.ilfoglio.it/il-foglio-ai/2025/03/22/news/a-first-assessment-of-foglio-ai-written-by-foglio-ai-with-a-scolding--109530 https://www.ilfoglio.it/il-foglio-ai/2025/03/22/news/a-first...
deterministic 2mo ago
> Unfortunately written by an AI - that completely takes the wind out of the content I don't think the all-too-common "written by AI" remarks are helpful. The article was informative and useful. That's what matters IMHO.

thunky 2mo ago

[flagged]

rdsubhas 2mo ago

I have to disagree with this as off topic. The blog lists ways to optimize sqlite for production, for those who have already made that choice. But these comment links are about choosing sqlite vs others and differences, which is completely unrelated and unnecessary for those who have already made that choice. I'm seeing a worrying trend on HN. Nearly for all articles, there is one unquantified, unproven comment at the top saying it's 100% AI — no proof, just baseless emotion of what fits the commenter's writing style. This is the new witch hunt, or virtue trolling. I read the original article and to be honest, this off topic comment definitely looks more like an AI troll bot wrote it than the article. The troll bot is instructed to do a google search and put 3 source links — no matter how irrelevant they are. So what is it now — one emotion vs another? If an article has sections and blocks, it's AI. What about infinite poor humans like me who have been writing like this since childhood? Since LLMs were trained on high quality blog posts, we can no longer have posts that fit the pre-AI definition of high quality? The content must be dumbed down with typis and scatter unconventional words, to prove AI trollers that it's not AI? Or a timelapse video of typing the article? Instead how about: if you don't want to read the article because it doesn't fit your personal style expectation — just don't bother commenting? I hope HN would ban AI trolling comments, and discuss substance.

adhamsalama 2mo ago
Even your comment looks like it's generated by AI.
- Defletter 2mo ago
  "You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes." - Maimonides I feel like "this is AI" needs to join the ranks "it's not that deep" and "this is a Wendy's" as an annoying thought-terminating cliche.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    except 99% of AI—written content is spam. If the article was an ad for some company and also made no sense, would you hate on the guy who commented "this is an ad"?
    - Defletter 2mo ago
      Because that's not what happened? What? Neither smartmic's root-level comment or rdsubhas's response mention it being an ad. I was criticising adhamsalama's dismissal of rdsubhas's comment as AI, who also said nothing about it being an ad. I'm so baffled. Can you not see the structure or the content of this thread?
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        did you actually read my comment
- tredre3 2mo ago
  I think this is deliberate to make a point. Even an AI doesn't use that many em dashes. GP wants you to question it as a "haha see? I'm human yet you called me an AI just like I thought!"
  - skavi 2mo ago

persedes 2mo ago

Hope this becomes a cultural norm outside of HN. You can have AI written text that had some actual human effort put into it [1], but sloppy AI written content should only be meant for anohter AI consumers and not humans. 1 - https://www.ilfoglio.it/il-foglio-ai/2025/03/22/news/a-first-assessment-of-foglio-ai-written-by-foglio-ai-with-a-scolding--109530 https://www.ilfoglio.it/il-foglio-ai/2025/03/22/news/a-first...

deterministic 2mo ago

> Unfortunately written by an AI - that completely takes the wind out of the content I don't think the all-too-common "written by AI" remarks are helpful. The article was informative and useful. That's what matters IMHO.