It is, it's disrespectful of the reader. Like others have said time and again across HN: why should I spend my time reading an article the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing?
> Not to mention the fact that you seem to be unaware of the fact that it's theoretically impossible to discern human writing from LLM writing unless there is an explicit signature in the writing.
Because with code the reviewer most likely believes you are putting more effort into writing code with an AI than you did handwriting it. If you don’t then your coworkers most likely already hate reviewing your agents crap.
But I probably don't want to do either. Low effort software is the same as a low effort blog post - easily reproducible and probably riddled with errors.
The cycles on my machines and the full weight of my conscious attention span are so categorically different that this comparison is just fundamentally nonsense.
Either the stuff is worth reading, or it's not worth reading. It really has nothing to do with how much effort it took the human, or entity, to get it on paper.
Gold that lands in my pocket is just as good as, or better than, gold I have to dig out of the ground.
It's not gold, it's generated text with no original thought – don't use analogies to make your argument, you just muddy the water and risk the conversation devolving into ever more superfluous comparisons like "akshually it's more like panning for gold because I have to sift out all of the bullshit".
The author would be better served posting their prompt instead of the cruft of shit the software builds up around it to pad out the length.
It’s not mathematically possible to reliably discern human writing from llm writing.
> It is, it's disrespectful of the reader. Like others have said time and again across HN: why should I spend my time reading an article the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing?
You are entitled to your opinion. As for me, I focus on the actual content and merits of the writing.
> It’s not mathematically possible to reliably discern human writing from llm writing.
Wish I could use emojis on HN because this definitely warrants the nerd emoji. Bud, humans aren't machines. It might not be "mathematically possible" for an algorithm to discern the difference, but a human can absolutely detect the uncanny valley that is LLM writing.
> You are entitled to your opinion. As for me, I focus on the actual content and merits of the writing.
You're entitled to waste your time if it pleases you.
Hey bud, I know you think you know it all but I assure you, you don’t. Classifiers are a heck of a lot more effective at discerning AI text due to things like the fact that LLMs tend to use more adjectives than humans. A classifier can sometimes discern the differences in distribution, whereas it’s virtually impossible for humans to do so.
I’d shave off my head if you or any other human can reliably discern LLM vs human in a proper controlled test.
You have no way to know whether the ideas presented are the authors own or whether they are wholly from the LLM. Nevertheless I think rejecting text purely on the basis that you think it is ai generated is a form of ad hominem.
Oh well, obviously. That's precisely how opinions work. To share several opinions with DHH on matters technical in nature is to agree with all DHH opinions on matters universal.
HN commentary becomes closer to reddit by the day.
> I wonder if the author also agrees with DHH’s racist opinions.
Suppose you hold viewpoint A, and so does DHH. Suppose further you have no idea who DHH is. I, for example, had never heard of him before 2024.
Suppose now that you discover DHH also has racist opinions.
By the sentiment you express in your comment, logic demands that you now change your preexisting viewpoint A because it’s now shared with a racist. Is that what you’re advocating?
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
Don’t waste your time.
I hope these hyperbolic takes can be over, forever.
computerex · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
nozzlegear · · focus · HN ↗
It is, it's disrespectful of the reader. Like others have said time and again across HN: why should I spend my time reading an article the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing?
> Not to mention the fact that you seem to be unaware of the fact that it's theoretically impossible to discern human writing from LLM writing unless there is an explicit signature in the writing.
Huh? No it's not lol
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
The same reasons you might spend your cycles running code the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing.
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
midnightclubbed · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
The game can have every detail tended to by a game designer, while the clanker builds it out.
nozzlegear · · focus · HN ↗
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
Either the stuff is worth reading, or it's not worth reading. It really has nothing to do with how much effort it took the human, or entity, to get it on paper.
Gold that lands in my pocket is just as good as, or better than, gold I have to dig out of the ground.
nozzlegear · · focus · HN ↗
The author would be better served posting their prompt instead of the cruft of shit the software builds up around it to pad out the length.
sejje · · focus · HN ↗
Why would that serve the author?
computerex · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://arxiv.org/html/2512.05311v1" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/html/2512.05311v1
It’s not mathematically possible to reliably discern human writing from llm writing.
> It is, it's disrespectful of the reader. Like others have said time and again across HN: why should I spend my time reading an article the "author" couldn't even spend their own time writing?
You are entitled to your opinion. As for me, I focus on the actual content and merits of the writing.
nozzlegear · · focus · HN ↗
Wish I could use emojis on HN because this definitely warrants the nerd emoji. Bud, humans aren't machines. It might not be "mathematically possible" for an algorithm to discern the difference, but a human can absolutely detect the uncanny valley that is LLM writing.
> You are entitled to your opinion. As for me, I focus on the actual content and merits of the writing.
You're entitled to waste your time if it pleases you.
computerex · · focus · HN ↗
I’d shave off my head if you or any other human can reliably discern LLM vs human in a proper controlled test.
moregrist · · focus · HN ↗
Which seems like a pretty good argument to me, given the amount of slip out there and how increasingly performative these pieces are.
computerex · · focus · HN ↗
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
bbg2401 · · focus · HN ↗
HN commentary becomes closer to reddit by the day.
stackghost · · focus · HN ↗
Suppose you hold viewpoint A, and so does DHH. Suppose further you have no idea who DHH is. I, for example, had never heard of him before 2024.
Suppose now that you discover DHH also has racist opinions.
By the sentiment you express in your comment, logic demands that you now change your preexisting viewpoint A because it’s now shared with a racist. Is that what you’re advocating?
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
At this point, our entire community knows about his racist views so why promote his racist ass further.
cindyllm · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
stackghost · · focus · HN ↗
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
stackghost · · focus · HN ↗
FeteCommuniste · · focus · HN ↗