Spruce up is unreasonably charitable. I'm more irritated that the authorship information is misleading. craig-kerstiens is not available on Huggingface, and yet not a single sentence in this article seems to have been typed on a keyboard.
replyWhen Claude writes things like "as someone who has spent a lot of time doing X", I think this is also a kind of failure of alignment. LLMs shouldn't write as if they had personal experience. It's something a person might say in the training data, but I just think LLMs shouldn't claim life experience they don't have, even if that's a statistically likely sequence of tokens.
You don't need to be charitable, Snowflake laid off technical writers citing AI to replace them: https://snowflake.help/snowflake-layoffs-2026-technical-writ...
replyThese low effort constant comments about style or formatting are against Hackernews guidelines for discussions and something needs to be done to clean up the comment section. Getting to a ridiculous point
replyIf comments about how "this blog post could have been a link to this github repo" are in-bounds, so are comments about how "this could have been a link to a LLM session." HN has always tried to work out if a submission is novel and interesting work or is just a slick coat of paint on mundane work (sometimes if good work is obscured by insufficiently clever presentation). Highlighting that content was generated by an LLM and asking if that impacts how to understand it is entirely in keeping with our culture and standards.
replyIt's not about style or formatting, people are tired of reading slop.
replydeleted
replyThese comments are worse than the slop.
replyThey aren't actually. They make me feel like I'm not going crazy - that I'm not the only person noticing that the quality of the average article on hacker news has dropped off a cliff in the last 6 months. Links from different people with different cultures, life experiences, and languages have the same tone of voice, the same sentence structure, and the same breathless, boring, staccato yet arrhythmic, emotive yet soulless style.
replyI hope everyone keeps pointing it out. Even better, change the site guidelines to make AI generated articles a flaggable offense. It's already been done for comments.
Hear hear. I can't believe people are content to consume slop like this.
replyPangram says the text is entirely AI generated but I don't know how trustworthy Pangram is. (I would love to hear what others think about it.)
replyFavorable benchmarks for Pangram exist, and it is one of the better AI detectors. But it's never been trustworthy as proof of authorship/misconduct, and it's getting less useful as models (and people's ability to steer them) improve.
replyhttps://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/05/pangram-ai-de...
It has extremely low false positive rate in various tests (e. g. https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v1), I've never seen it mark something I knew was human written as AI.
replyI get it's in vogue to take stabs at whether or not AI was used. But I think the more useful approach is to instead be critical of the end product, if you have criticisms of it.
replyThis IS a criticism of the end product.
replyThis actually gave me an amusing idea: a book review club that strictly reviews the cover art, book binding, hand feel, paper weight, font, etc. of the book.
replyHow weird a book club that actively ignores the style of writing would be!
replydeleted
reply[dead]
reply