> it confronts the audience with the uncomfortable situation where the machine is more humane than humans.
Ironic given how many HN commenters were tricked into upvoting this LLM junk article. Read the statement at the end - It was AI generated. It’s on a new substack. It’s posted by a new HN account. It’s LLM content mill junk from top to bottom and people were eating it right up.
I agree with avoiding AI generated opinion pieces, but in this case was this article really “LLM junk”? At the bottom it attributes:
> This article was written in collaboration with AI. The tool helped shape the words—but the questions, the direction, and the discomfort it carries are human.
If I take their disclaimer at face value it could mean that the author used AI to fix their grammar. Does this make their arguments invalid? If the author wanted to just post LLM junk then wouldn’t they omit the disclaimer altogether?
I think it’s important to attribute the use of AI when submitting an article, but I’d be less inclined to do so if readers would label my writing entirely as LLM generated. Maybe the only solution is to not use LLMs and just get gud at English.
The content of the article isn't worth your time, but the central thesis is still interesting. This kind of AI blog spam is just the modern iteration of the self-help book that could be summarized on a single page but is fluffed out to 200 pages with pointless anecdotes, or the scientific paper that contains three pages of pointless math that doesn't actually add anything. For some reason we expect worthy ideas to have a certain volume of text behind it, even if the author doesn't actually have that much to say
Ironic given how many HN commenters were tricked into upvoting this LLM junk article. Read the statement at the end - It was AI generated. It’s on a new substack. It’s posted by a new HN account. It’s LLM content mill junk from top to bottom and people were eating it right up.