Thread

1. ltbarcly3 · 1790781698 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. t-writescode · 1790782078 · focus · HN ↗

      That.. looks like a normal sentence to me, and very probably one of the ones Microsoft required they add.

      Did you give the article a once-over beyond that? It’s one of the decidedly not-AI lines.

      1. ltbarcly3 · 1790782225 · focus · HN ↗

         Prefixing saying something with "Two quick notes first" is extremely common AI meta commentary. You may be right that it is something Microsoft insisted he put at the top, which would also explain the weird style.

         1. functionmouse · 1790783099 · focus · HN ↗

            From where do you think AI learned that?

            1. Forgeties79 · 1790783233 · focus · HN ↗

               All AI semantic tendencies were “learned” from us. That doesn’t change anything.
            2. vonneumannstan · 1790783447 · focus · HN ↗

               Weird user preferences during RLHF. Also how we got bulleted lists and emojis everywhere.
            3. ltbarcly3 · 1790791365 · focus · HN ↗

               Learning a phrase from humans doesn’t prevent a model from overusing it or making it a recognizable stylistic habit.
      2. 0x_rs · 1790783396 · focus · HN ↗

         It's not a "normal" sentence and is quite clearly produced by an LLM, it's a typical Claudeism so probably that. The entire post is also flagged by Pangram, so OP is correct.

         1. encom · 1790805293 · focus · HN ↗

              > microsoft authored post
              > clickbait headline
              > slop writing
              > some kid
            

            Yea it's another bullshit post on the front page.
   2. gosub100 · 1790784837 · focus · HN ↗

      Explain why easily 40% of HN posts are about AI, and when people actually _use_ AI for this task, they are vilified for (allegedly) using it.

      1. bix6 · 1790785378 · focus · HN ↗

         He’s fine to use the AI for bug hunting but nobody wants to read AI’s bullshit slop and tone

         1. icantevenhold · 1790787301 · focus · HN ↗

            I’m as tired of slopped up text as the next person but the example OP gave really isn’t that bad

            1. [deleted] · 1790787997 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

            2. ltbarcly3 · 1790791259 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

      2. ltbarcly3 · 1790791092 · focus · HN ↗

         I pasted the thread into ChatGPT and here is what it would like to tell you:

         The comment explicitly says, “I am the last person to judge someone for using AI to help them write a blog post.” The criticism is about the quality of the published prose and whether anyone reviewed it before putting their name on it.

         You can dispute whether that sentence is bad or whether it indicates AI authorship. But “why criticize unedited AI prose when HN talks about AI so much?” doesn’t identify a contradiction. Discussing a technology doesn’t imply endorsing every use of it, and criticizing its output isn’t the same as vilifying someone for using it.

         — GPT-6.1 Sol

   3. eviks · 1790786092 · focus · HN ↗

      All of the above, though mostly the last one.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.