4 ms·

> There’s one honest footnote. nails on a chalkboard. when will agents stop writing like this

by bpbp-mango 19d ago

Stitch4223 19d ago
Using slop constructs to convey intricacies about beautiful design is the purest form of anti-design.
techiferous 19d ago
That's where I stopped reading.
- conorcleary 19d ago
  Remember this detail for later.
- jaynate 19d ago
  > “Then you tried to ship real client work, and the dream fell apart.” For me it was here. I have tried for months to get AI to write for me and have now fully embraced the fact that LLMs are not ready to do that for me. None of them. I’ve gone back to writing my own content and only using the LLM to brainstorm.
arttaboi 19d ago
I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be.
- matheusmoreira 19d ago
  Pangram seems to be very accurate. I don't think that's a good thing though. Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
  - plastic-enjoyer 18d ago
    > Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that. That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
    - matheusmoreira 18d ago
      > AI-generated rubbish Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality. > you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget. Best part is Claude warned me repeteadly that I should tone it down, and I deliberarely ignored it in order to preserve my voice and keep it pure. I'm much more inclined to listen now.
      - nixon_why69 18d ago
        If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
        matheusmoreira 18d ago
        Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human? Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish? > I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republished AI amswers. I can do it too. I consider it rude to reply to people with AI answers during conversation. Not because I hate AI, but because it made the social interaction pointless. That doesn't somehow invalidate the value of an AI generated article though. Not everyone thinks to prompt it with that exact idea. Not everyone has an AI they can prompt. Not everyone wants to waste their limited tokens on the idea. I realize that reading Claudish can be aggravating but that doesn't somehow eliminate the ideas contained in the article. Those can still be very valuable, which is why I advocate for quality filters.
- climech 19d ago
  Yeah, especially since we're exposed to so much AI-generated text these days, we may inadvertently pick up some verbal habits from it, the same way people tend to imitate each other. And needless to say false positives can be quite damaging here.
- pasteleft 18d ago
  Clearly it will make this even worse. Soon every HN posts will have some comments like "86% AI. Skip it."
yosito 18d ago
I appreciate the feedback. I did use AI to help me put this post together quickly. I've gone through today and manually re-written it. No more AI slop.

> There’s one honest footnote. nails on a chalkboard. when will agents stop writing like this

Stitch4223 19d ago

Using slop constructs to convey intricacies about beautiful design is the purest form of anti-design.

techiferous 19d ago

That's where I stopped reading.

conorcleary 19d ago
Remember this detail for later.
jaynate 19d ago
> “Then you tried to ship real client work, and the dream fell apart.” For me it was here. I have tried for months to get AI to write for me and have now fully embraced the fact that LLMs are not ready to do that for me. None of them. I’ve gone back to writing my own content and only using the LLM to brainstorm.

arttaboi 19d ago

I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be.

matheusmoreira 19d ago
Pangram seems to be very accurate. I don't think that's a good thing though. Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
- plastic-enjoyer 18d ago
  > Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that. That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
  - matheusmoreira 18d ago
    > AI-generated rubbish Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality. > you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget. Best part is Claude warned me repeteadly that I should tone it down, and I deliberarely ignored it in order to preserve my voice and keep it pure. I'm much more inclined to listen now.
    - nixon_why69 18d ago
      If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
      - matheusmoreira 18d ago
        Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human? Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish? > I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republished AI amswers. I can do it too. I consider it rude to reply to people with AI answers during conversation. Not because I hate AI, but because it made the social interaction pointless. That doesn't somehow invalidate the value of an AI generated article though. Not everyone thinks to prompt it with that exact idea. Not everyone has an AI they can prompt. Not everyone wants to waste their limited tokens on the idea. I realize that reading Claudish can be aggravating but that doesn't somehow eliminate the ideas contained in the article. Those can still be very valuable, which is why I advocate for quality filters.
climech 19d ago
Yeah, especially since we're exposed to so much AI-generated text these days, we may inadvertently pick up some verbal habits from it, the same way people tend to imitate each other. And needless to say false positives can be quite damaging here.
pasteleft 18d ago
Clearly it will make this even worse. Soon every HN posts will have some comments like "86% AI. Skip it."

yosito 18d ago

I appreciate the feedback. I did use AI to help me put this post together quickly. I've gone through today and manually re-written it. No more AI slop.