upvote

points

by AussieWog936 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby hahahaa6 hours ago|
next
[-]
This is not AI
reply
upvoteby b40d-48b2-979e6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The headings style wasn't an immediate giveaway to you? The rules of three in every. short. staccato. paragraph? The X, not Y?

The author's writing is wildly different pre-AI.

reply
upvoteby ggambetta5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
For me it was "There’s a clean exception to all of this, and it flips the entire logic." and "here’s the reframe". That's Claude-speak.
reply
upvoteby maaarghk6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You could say it flipped their entire logic. Not that it would make sense. But I groaned reading it.
reply
upvoteby inglor_cz6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
One of the most tiring and depressing developments of 2026 is that nowadays, every single discussion relating to every single blog post out there degenerates into a "This is AI slop" accusation fest.

I would be a huge friend of introducing a new rule on the Hacker News that whoever accuses others of using AI and cannot support his accusation by something substantial, gets permabanned.

reply
upvoteby AussieWog935 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The blog goes back to 2007.

Every single post made prior to ChatGPT has a very strong irreverent sense of humour as well as specific Chinese-English phrases. If you speak to Chinese migrants/colleagues/suppliers you'll recognise it immediately:

https://wangcong.org/2009/04/09/got-a-new-job/

https://wangcong.org/2019-03-14-how-to-pretend-to-be-a-linux...

https://wangcong.org/2008/12/25/when-i-was-in-portugal/

Then magically, every single post after the invention of LLMs happens to be structured exactly like the dominant LLM style of the era:

https://wangcong.org/2025-02-27-ebpf-trend-analysis.html

https://wangcong.org/2026-01-13-personal-taste-is-the-moat.h...

https://wangcong.org/2026-06-30-why-i-stopped-arguing-with-p...

reply
upvoteby b40d-48b2-979e4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Curious how he ignores evidence and instead replies to other comments to make ad-hominem attacks.
reply
upvoteby Jtsummers4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Trolls will troll, they don't care about truth or facts, just making noise and disrupting conversation.
reply
upvoteby inglor_cz3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
You mean me? I didn't have time to check all those links yet, though I appreciate the effort.
reply
upvoteby ThrowawayR25 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I, on the other hand, wouldn't support that because it's too often true that the submission is low value AI output.
reply
upvoteby inglor_cz5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In that case, simply vote the submission down; that won't clutter the discussion for other forists who want to talk about the actual content. I think this is what the voting system is fundamentally for; we don't have to, and probably shouldn't, justify our votes aloud.
reply
upvoteby b40d-48b2-979e5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What actual content? It's AI slop.
reply
upvoteby inglor_cz5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
How do I know that you aren't a bot yourself?
reply
upvoteby Karuma3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Most people can easily tell the difference between useless bot crap (like the article), and genuine human comments (like the one you're replying to).

Too bad you and most HN commenters nowadays can't...

reply
upvoteby inglor_cz3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"This is slop." sounds like something that a fairly simple bot could paste in every thread, with slight verbal variations. Sorry, I don't see the genuine humanity there, and I doubt that any double-blind experiment could nowadays distinguish between 10-word drive-by comments written by humans vs. AI. That is nowhere enough material to analyze and tell apart.
reply