> You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM.
I simply extrapolated your stated position by applying it to another, relatable, situation. The use of "add feature X" was to keep the response succinct and served as a placeholder.
> Next time, you might want to review the HN guidelines and be less combative
And you might want to review same after originally authoring:
These incessant complaints about LLM-written text don't
help and they make the comment threads really boring. HN
should really introduce a rule to ban such complaints just
like it bans complaints about tangential annoyances like
article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button
breakageThe extrapolation was incorrect since you extrapolated it to something I didn't imply. What makes your comments really funny is that in reality like you, I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. Yet you manage to find disagreements where there are none and be combative. Well done, sir!
> The extrapolation led to something I didn't imply.
I extrapolated my interpretation of your position to make the point that to "revise and refine" is equivalent to "generate", in that the latter is the effect of the former without shrouding the source of the work.
> ... I'm sure that'd have been very welcome if you hadn't posed it in a combative manner that comes across as a 'take down' of my comment.
This is your interpretation. Mine is that I have not made ad hominem responses nor anything similar.
> So your extrapolation stands well on its own. I just don't see the need to pose it as a sort of "take down" on my comment.
This is the second time you've used the phrase "take down." Having a differing opinion and expressing such is not a "take down."
> What I find really funny is that in reality like you, I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So we must be in agreement?
In that we most certainly are. In addition, I believe those who use LLMs to produce content as if it were their own work is unacceptable. This might be different for someone else, depending on one's definition of what is plagiarism.
>> And you might want to review same after originally authoring
> I have. I've found nothing in the guidelines that forbid me from ...
Guidelines do not forbid, they suggest for the betterment of everyone's experience.
> ... expressing my frustrations over the abundant supply of trite comments.
See:
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but
please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at
the rest of the community.
Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
people's work.
There are no "HN overlords", only Zuul[0].
(that last one was a joke)
Way to stretch my comment and make it mean something I didn't mean! You have gone from me talking about just "revising and refining a post" to someone generating whole software features using LLM.
First, I wasn't talking about generating whole software features. Second, pretending as if I implied anything like that even remotely is a disingenuous and frankly a bad-faith style of debating.
You are looking for some sort of disagreement when there is none. I detest LLM-based plagiarism too. So really confused why you've to come here and look for disagreements when there is none and be combative, no less? If this is your style of debating, I refuse to engage further.
Next time, you might want to review the HN guidelines and be less combative: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.