9 ms·

I don't think I've ever seen someone on HN say that. Many people would say that AI makes them more productive at coding, not that the output is nice to read.

eru 26d ago
I would say that AI prose is often still a bit iffy, but I would disagree with anyone who would want to argue that this is any indication that AI prose will always be bad in the future.
lelanthran 26d ago
> I don't think I've ever seen someone on HN say that. A 5m search got me the following: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49410941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49410941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49411042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49411042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49059571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49059571 This thread, in particular, stands out - reader makes the claim that Pangram found that the US constitution was 100% AI generated, when others tried they found 0% (or close to it) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48378191 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48378191
- card_zero 26d ago
  Those are not that. The first two are people complaining about other people incontinently identifying text as AI, because it's annoying to listen to unreliable hunches and aspersions. The second two are complaining about AI detectors not being very reliable. The claim made in the last one is a casual anecdote about "an AI detector", presumably told because it's amusing. It isn't a vehement statement about how you must accept slop into your life.
  - lelanthran 26d ago
    Sorry, to me any complaint about people complaining about prose is a vehement statement about accepting AI. I feel that if one doesn't want to send that message, they shouldn't be attempting to convince others that rejection of AI prose must stop.
    - Seattle3503 26d ago
      Yeah, intentionally or unintentionally there is often at motte-and-bailey fallacy flavor to their arguments. The motte is that it can sometimes be hard to identify AI writing, the baily is that we should accept AI wholesale and stop worrying about AI writing.

eru 26d ago

I would say that AI prose is often still a bit iffy, but I would disagree with anyone who would want to argue that this is any indication that AI prose will always be bad in the future.

lelanthran 26d ago

> I don't think I've ever seen someone on HN say that. A 5m search got me the following: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49410941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49410941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49411042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49411042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49059571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49059571 This thread, in particular, stands out - reader makes the claim that Pangram found that the US constitution was 100% AI generated, when others tried they found 0% (or close to it) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48378191 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48378191

card_zero 26d ago
Those are not that. The first two are people complaining about other people incontinently identifying text as AI, because it's annoying to listen to unreliable hunches and aspersions. The second two are complaining about AI detectors not being very reliable. The claim made in the last one is a casual anecdote about "an AI detector", presumably told because it's amusing. It isn't a vehement statement about how you must accept slop into your life.
- lelanthran 26d ago
  Sorry, to me any complaint about people complaining about prose is a vehement statement about accepting AI. I feel that if one doesn't want to send that message, they shouldn't be attempting to convince others that rejection of AI prose must stop.
  - Seattle3503 26d ago
    Yeah, intentionally or unintentionally there is often at motte-and-bailey fallacy flavor to their arguments. The motte is that it can sometimes be hard to identify AI writing, the baily is that we should accept AI wholesale and stop worrying about AI writing.