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.
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.
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
Don’t waste your time.
I hope these hyperbolic takes can be over, forever.
computerex · · 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
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.