upvote
> I think that's a good observation, but I wouldn't say those people are actually astroturfing (noting you only said they smell like that).

I agree with everything you've said here [0] as well as this bit I'm quoting specifically. I would strongly disagree with any claim that positive reports from "low-horsepower" people are likely to be astroturf. I'm just noting that a lot of astroturf reads like the way the "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things.

[0] ...at least with whatever the comment said when I wrote this one ;)...

reply
> I agree with everything you've said here [0] as well as this bit I'm quoting specifically. I would strongly disagree with any claim that positive reports from "low-horsepower" people are likely to be astroturf.

I think we're in agreement.

> I'm just noting that a lot of astroturf reads like the way the "low-horsepower" people I've known tend to praise things.

The "why" behind that would be interesting to know. It could just be that we assume astroturf would be low-effort, and that praise is low-effort (even if that's the most effort the "low-horsepower" person can muster), so they read the same.

reply
> I think we're in agreement.

Ditto!

> The "why" behind that would be interesting to know.

I'm going to briefly noodle on about why I think astroturfing generally Sounds Like That, and then attempt to answer your implied question.

So my hunch about the tone of astroturfing is that it's _kind of_ like 419 scams. [0] Perhaps none of this is new to you, but I write it down anyway:

1) Creating detailed praise that withstands scrutiny is a lot of effort, whereas expressing positive sentiment in very broad strokes is extremely easy. If your strokes are broad enough, you can probably often reuse the praise, saving even more time and effort. Similarly, defending criticism of detailed praise is much harder than defending broad-strokes positive sentiment.

2) If you want to hire live people to astroturf on message boards, people able to effectively defend detailed praise are surely going to be much more expensive than those who can only handle the vague broad-strokes stuff.

3) The target of this astroturfing deliberately isn't someone who can scrutinize detailed praise... in part because of how much work it is to author that praise, and in part because the people with power and/or purchasing authority are the ones you want to target... and it's often but not always the case that those folks lack one or more of the time, background information, or horsepower required to perform that detailed scrutiny in the first place. So, why waste the time, effort, and money?

Now please excuse the dogshit writing style of the following attempt to address your question, I'm definitely having a "low-horsepower" day today...

But why do "low-horsepower" people tend to praise in that way? speaking as someone who definitely has "low-horsepower" days, and who has occasionally been an absolutely godawful teacher, it might have something to do with the whole "You can't effectively teach someone something if you don't have a solid understanding of it yourself." thing? Both detailed praise and good instruction require a detailed understanding of the thing in question.

So part of the reason might be that "low-horsepower" folks tend to have just a surface understanding of the thing they're praising, so they cannot really create detailed praise. [1]

Both praise and instruction invite questions from the folks who are around to hear it. Folks who are capable of feeling shame often feel shame when when they present themselves as someone who is far more knowledgable about something than they actually are and questioning reveals the deception.

So another part of the reason might be to avoid in-depth questioning -both to determine the justifications for their praise, as well as to gain an in-depth understanding of parts of the thing being praised that the praiser is entirely unequipped to provide-. If one gets a vague "IDK, it's just good, right? It makes my work so much faster! I just like it!" response to your request for praise then that's a signal that you're not likely to get much more information if you ask probing questions. _Maybe_. This paragraph I'm super not confident in.

I'm happy to chat more about this, and will spend some time over the next day or so trying to phrase the gunk that's in my head better... but I can't make any promises that I will succeed at that.

[0] ...AKA "Nigerian Prince" scams...

[1] To downvoters: There's absolutely nothing wrong with this! Knowing just enough about your work and how to do it to satisfy your boss and keep your paychecks flowing is a solid way to live one's life. Precious few people do work that they like, let alone work that they're interested in... and it's my bone-deep belief that the best future for all humanity is one in which no one has to work unless they either want to or if having a job of some kind truly makes their life far better than not having one. Work sucks for most folks and putting in just enough effort to get the work done to the standard required is a fine way to engage with it.

reply
You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.

People are writing entire apps in days. You're just jaded if that isn't impressive to you.

reply
Nope.

You:

  You're again reverting to the only reason people like these is because they're stupid.
Me:

  If you haven't already, you should watch this topical presentation from Greg K-H that was posted to HN like a week ago.  ... Notice how his praise for the tools differs from so much of the expressed positive sentiment for said tools here on HN. ... The "high-horsepower" people I've known both express very nuanced opinions ...
reply
Thanks but I'm not going to watch it.

> people are simultaneously much more easily impressed and often lack the skill to properly evaluate the output they're getting

Yes, this is the exact sentiment expressed. That the praise you see is because of these people with low-horsepower who aren't capable of evaluating their own experiences.

reply
> Thanks but I'm not going to watch it.

You really should! It's positive sentiment about LLM-based tools that comes from a "high-horsepower" individual. Given your commentary here, it really seems like you've not encountered much of that sort of thing, so it'd really do you some good to load it into to your databanks for use in future discussions.

reply
I've encountered plenty of it on HN and elsewhere, I just don't share your view of the space.
reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
[flagged]
reply
Well, yeah, when you are asked why people talk about these models on HN and your answers are: myopia, funded support, taking things personally, and pedantry and then you double down on it suggesting that another reason is these people aren't capable of evaluating what they are seeing, then you are only painting those people with a negative brush.

Do yo believe there are positive reasons people are adopting these models? Because there is nothing in your responses that suggest you do. I, as somebody who rarely uses these models but understands why people might, don't see any attempt at being unbiased.

reply
[flagged]
reply
You both broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread, including by crossing into personal attack.

Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them in the future? We'd appreciate it.

reply
I got it now. This is just how you communicate, insulting people who disagree with you.

Frankly I don't think you've understood what I was saying but it doesn't matter. You keep saying I'm misunderstanding you but your bias is very obvious and I don't think you've answered why people are praising these models.

reply
You both broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread, including by crossing into personal attack.

Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to them in the future? We'd appreciate it.

reply