Thread

1. rollinDyno · 1790371112 · focus · HN ↗

   I understand the sensation of disgust when being offered to read a piece of AI slop. However, I'm actually curious about how our sensitivity towards slop will evolve. I imagine people will have varying degrees of tolerance.

   Afterall, AI slop doesn't necessarily mean the prompter didn't read. It just means they're OK with the AI phrasing. It's also possible that they read the output and had the AI update with whatever edits they prompted.

   Writing this comment makes me more convinced that if us users of AI want our written work to be taken seriously, then we should also share our prompts. I hope we quickly converge into a standard way of sharing the prompts that generated a given product.

   1. criemen · 1790371355 · focus · HN ↗

      I hope that labs are actively working on the voice and writing styles of their models. I don't want to read slop in large part because their prose is overly verbose and complicated. If the models were writing simple sentences in mainstream English, mirroring the vocabulary used by my colleagues, I'd mind less than the current status.

      Surely that's something that can be trained for.

      1. bmoathn · 1790371722 · focus · HN ↗

         I think they definitely are. One of the Opus 5.5 selling points in the release announcement was something like "less jargoney / rambling communication"

         Might be a long road, but at least we'll have no shortage of good instagram memes in the meantime

      2. senderista · 1790371749 · focus · HN ↗

         This is largely a Claude problem and GPT models don't suffer from it to nearly the same extent.
      3. skeledrew · 1790380834 · focus · HN ↗

         You can create a skill for that today. No need for specific training.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.