5 ms·

Yeah, it's quite bad. Just some of the classics: - "Why This Matters" - "That's accurate, but it's only half the answer — and the less interesting half" - "t

by nake89 6mo ago

Yeah, it's quite bad. Just some of the classics: - "Why This Matters" - "That's accurate, but it's only half the answer — and the less interesting half" - "this isn't an edge case. It's routine." I'm at the point, I would just rather read something somebody actually wrote even if it's not grammatically perfect and has lots of spelling mistakes.

mlhpdx 6mo ago
Unfortately the expectation of readers, and algorithms, at large is perfection.
- seanhunter 6mo ago
  No. It’s authenticity instead of llm-generated blogvertising.
  - mlhpdx 6mo ago
    When I ask an LLM, one that’s vaunted here for it’s skill on code, to “clean up obvious errors and improve readability” how is that “LLM generated”? Yes it’s advertising in that I believe in my product and write about it.
    - seanhunter 6mo ago
      Dude. Give it a rest. You had the LLM write an article, you posted it here. You got called out. Just write your own blog and this won't happen in future.
      - mlhpdx 6mo ago
        Sigh. I did write it, then I used an LLM to clean it up. Seriously, if you can find anything else out there making a similar point or providing a similar library I'd love to hear about it.
        nake89 6mo ago
        It did more than clean it up. It stained it completely.
- Fnoord 6mo ago
  If this contained various grammer mystaeks, but interesting content, it wouldn't have been flagged. As usual with LLM, it is based on other content. Show me the source, we used to say to binaries... ¿Que pasa?
  - mlhpdx 6mo ago
    So the upvotes were for? Anyway, we disagree — thats normal. > As usual with LLM, it is based on other content. Show me where else on the internet someone waxed poetic about a conceptual separation of transport and function regarding WireGuard. I dare you. Show me another client library like the one in the article? That’s the double-dare. Did you even read it?
    - seanhunter 6mo ago
      Since you didn't think it was worth writing it yourself, I don't see how you can expect others to think it's worth spending their time to read.
      - mlhpdx 6mo ago
        So no, then? Thanks for your thoughtful engagement.
    - Fnoord 6mo ago
      > So the upvotes were for? People getting tricked? Who knows? > Did you even read it? I quit when I figured it was written by an LLM. I'm not interested in reading LLM 'content' without it providing a source. I am willing to generate some of my own sauce with a prompt, and then requesting the sources. That way, I know at least some parameters of the input and output. But with your article, I do not know which sources were used as reference, I do not know which prompt you used. As for HN, they're busy with tackling the LLM problem. They know it is a problem.
      - mlhpdx 6mo ago
        Again, this was novel content. If you find a source of anything similar let me know. I'm belaboring this point for one important reason: content matters. I want to see new thoughts, not repetitive mindless drivel in personal "voice". There has to be a balance.

by nake89 6mo ago

mlhpdx 6mo ago

Unfortately the expectation of readers, and algorithms, at large is perfection.

seanhunter 6mo ago
No. It’s authenticity instead of llm-generated blogvertising.
- mlhpdx 6mo ago
  When I ask an LLM, one that’s vaunted here for it’s skill on code, to “clean up obvious errors and improve readability” how is that “LLM generated”? Yes it’s advertising in that I believe in my product and write about it.
  - seanhunter 6mo ago
    Dude. Give it a rest. You had the LLM write an article, you posted it here. You got called out. Just write your own blog and this won't happen in future.
    - mlhpdx 6mo ago
      Sigh. I did write it, then I used an LLM to clean it up. Seriously, if you can find anything else out there making a similar point or providing a similar library I'd love to hear about it.
      - nake89 6mo ago
        It did more than clean it up. It stained it completely.
Fnoord 6mo ago
If this contained various grammer mystaeks, but interesting content, it wouldn't have been flagged. As usual with LLM, it is based on other content. Show me the source, we used to say to binaries... ¿Que pasa?
- mlhpdx 6mo ago
  So the upvotes were for? Anyway, we disagree — thats normal. > As usual with LLM, it is based on other content. Show me where else on the internet someone waxed poetic about a conceptual separation of transport and function regarding WireGuard. I dare you. Show me another client library like the one in the article? That’s the double-dare. Did you even read it?
  - seanhunter 6mo ago
    Since you didn't think it was worth writing it yourself, I don't see how you can expect others to think it's worth spending their time to read.
    - mlhpdx 6mo ago
      So no, then? Thanks for your thoughtful engagement.
  - Fnoord 6mo ago
    > So the upvotes were for? People getting tricked? Who knows? > Did you even read it? I quit when I figured it was written by an LLM. I'm not interested in reading LLM 'content' without it providing a source. I am willing to generate some of my own sauce with a prompt, and then requesting the sources. That way, I know at least some parameters of the input and output. But with your article, I do not know which sources were used as reference, I do not know which prompt you used. As for HN, they're busy with tackling the LLM problem. They know it is a problem.
    - mlhpdx 6mo ago
      Again, this was novel content. If you find a source of anything similar let me know. I'm belaboring this point for one important reason: content matters. I want to see new thoughts, not repetitive mindless drivel in personal "voice". There has to be a balance.