But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN, which you ideally can copy-paste across all potential LLM-written comments? Something doesn't add up there, don't spend energy writing the comments if you cannot even be bothered to read it because no one was bothered to write it.
replyI don't think the copy-paste dismissal is sound. Consider:
You can ideally copy paste your generic comment across all potential LLM-written-criticism comments? And I can copy paste this generic comment on all LLM-written-criticism-apologist comments. Something doesn't add up here.
replyYes? There is nothing incoherent with disliking something and putting in effort to see less of it. "Ignore it" is an answer, not the only possible answer, and probably not the optimal one in the long term.
replyPersonally I detest AI generated creative content with every fibre of my being any will gladly rubbish on it without bothering to read the slop first.
replySame, nothing I said is in conflict with that. I just equally despise HN comments vaguely complaining about maybe AI written content.
replyIt reminds me of high school, ages ago, when a friend would go on and on about how Depeche Mode weren’t musicians and how nobody cares about electronic music. I’m a little nostalgic for the hours, cumulatively probably weeks, that I heard about just how much he didn’t care about Depeche Mode.
reply> But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN, which you ideally can copy-paste across all potential LLM-written comments?
replyI mean, I personally wouldn't specifically on HN, since it's generally unproductive conversation, but yes? You say this as if there is some gotcha or contradiction there, but there is not. It is far, far, far less work to write a short comment than to read pages and pages of AI slop.
> But still be bothered to leave a generic complain on HN
replyIs 'whataboutism' your counter argument? Really?
This is reductive. The author did write it, but used AI to polish it before publishing.
reply