Thread

1. blandcoffee · 1790030993 · focus · HN ↗

   I appreciate the direction of this article, and commend the author on publishing work, but the first sentence in the first paragraph is exactly what they lament.

   > A pattern I see is that people use AI to build something new, then they use AI to retrospectively summarize what they have already built into a design document. Reading a document like this isn’t just difficult—it is punishing.

   1. neynt · 1790031282 · focus · HN ↗

      To be quite generous, that could be tongue in cheek.

      1. hatthew · 1790031703 · focus · HN ↗

         That was my assumption. The alternative is that the author is a blatant hypocrite, which seems less likely given their blog's history.

         1. raincole · 1790035243 · focus · HN ↗

            > given their blog's history

            All of the posts in 2026 on that blog area about AI, by the way.

      2. gavinsyancey · 1790032665 · focus · HN ↗

         There are other AI smells later in the article, and the author talks about using AI to help with writing...

         1. mrheosuper · 1790044555 · focus · HN ↗

            After all AI is trained on human writting, the line is incredible blur now.

            1. therealdrag0 · 1790051879 · focus · HN ↗

               I feel the need to self sensor my writing when phrases sound like AI. Pretty annoying.

               1. bendergarcia · 1790052568 · focus · HN ↗

                  I leave typos in all my writing so people know it’s not ai
               2. jasonkester · 1790054390 · focus · HN ↗

                  You could try throwing in the odd homonym in place of an important word so that people know it must have been written by a human.
               3. dana-s · 1790074270 · focus · HN ↗

                  It's now a CAPTCHA to tell humans apart from bots based on how you write.
   2. Apocryphon · 1790031309 · focus · HN ↗

      That's a classic calling card of LLM prose but that doesn't mean they actually used an AI. Though sure, it would be nice if we gave this style a name and then abolished it.

      1. sippeangelo · 1790032141 · focus · HN ↗

         No, usually humans write more than just a short unsubstantiated punchline in their "it's not x, it's y's", unless they're trying to sell you something.
      2. epihelix · 1790032847 · focus · HN ↗

         Well, not quite the classic calling card - LLMs generally use a contrast of opposites. (e.g. "it wasn't a bug -- it was a feature", although that predates LLMs :)

         TFA's use is more common in "normal" language: "it's not just [minor], it's [major]". (But, as others have pointed out, it was probably deliberately parodic anyway.)

      3. linguae · 1790033335 · focus · HN ↗

         I call it the “it’s not delivery—it’s DiGiorno” construct. I generally tune out when I see this construct, which is so prevalent on LinkedIn these days, which is inundated with clichéd writing.

         1. theandrewbailey · 1790033932 · focus · HN ↗

            > “it’s not delivery—it’s DiGiorno”

            We've had AI output all these decades, but never recognized it. Is this evidence of time travel?

            \s

         2. watwut · 1790058223 · focus · HN ↗

            To be fair, LinkedIn was pure slop even before ai arrived.
   3. niccl · 1790041449 · focus · HN ↗

      FWIW Pangram [0] "We believe that this entire text is human-written."

      I've only just discovered pangram, but I've seen it referred to a few times in HN recently wit nothing obviously pejorative about it. Take it with all required grains of salt, though

      0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pangram.com&#x2F;dashboard" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pangram.com&#x2F;dashboard

      1. breezybottom · 1790042561 · focus · HN ↗

         AI detectors are useless.

         1. pastel8739 · 1790043218 · focus · HN ↗

            I’ll present with as much evidence as you do that I’ve heard pangram is quite reliable. I believe that have studies on their website.
   4. JimTheMan · 1790048613 · focus · HN ↗

      I believe that to be a very obvious joke. The kind that the british are fond of.
   5. watwut · 1790058130 · focus · HN ↗

      The not this but that is bad when it is out of nowhere combination. In here, it has actual meaning.
   6. swipee · 1790105759 · focus · HN ↗

      I was about to comment on the exact same thing. Stopped reading after this. AI writing patterns has started to show itself in my AI allergy. Don’t get me wrong I like AI but it’s a pain to read the same style over and over again.

      1. Anamon · 1790499004 · focus · HN ↗

         I gave it the benefit of the doubt given the point of the article, and the rest of it was fine, so I also believe it was meant as a joke.

         A bit ironic, too, because the same article later quotes polls where a majority of respondents said they immediately stop reading an article and any future ones by the same author if their LLM detector goes off.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.