Why is it stupid to flag genuinely LLM-written content? It might've been thought out by a human, but the final version is clearly LLM-written or extremely heavily LLM-edited.
replyHN guidelines ask you to not do this.
reply> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
While few read them, it might be helpful if @dang threw in the ", or LLM generated content".
HN guidelines also say that HN is for conversation between humans.
replyIf we are having a conversation with the author through their article, then the prose should be human too. :^)
It's mostly boring. About 50% of comments of HN are about this at the moment, drowning out actual discussion.
replyIf someone writes an interesting article using LLM, I don't mind.
Can we stop this stupid trend to generate prose using LLMs?
reply"... can we stop this stupid trend to flag everything as LLM generated?"
replyI have trying to fight this war and lose-- this default lazy behaviour "I dont like this post so it must be llm" followed by some idiotic example
Its become a fad here. Half the people dont read any post, just skim it and post "this is llm" and move on