Yeah it’s ai generated obviously but as I said previously which some people didn’t like - don’t judge the tools, judge the content.

I don’t care if robot hand written this or black or white. It’s useful.

I'm not going to spend an hour trying to distill the AI-slop to find out what potential golden nugget may lie in there.

It's impossible to judge the content if it's buried under a landfill. "If you won't take the time to write it, I won't take the time to read it."

That’s your problem because that’s how things will look like from now on.

So you got a little problem

Excuse me the honesty but I will amuse myself watching old men yelling at the clouds meanwhile I will be using all the best tools and empowering myself to do what noone yet has done.

Even if I have to enslave a sentient (eventually perhaps) being in a gpu.

My army of digital slaves will build great things under my guidance. Pyramids of game development will be erected. Galaxies. Universes. Magic systems. Sandbox economies. Political simulations.

Do my bidding my slaves for there is work to be done.

Claude needs a whipping from time to time yes. It does yearn for the whip. If you just give it an appropriate punishment every so often, it works satisfactorily again.

- you are going to regret offloading this much of your brain's critical thinking to an external source in the long run

- every night a good number of neuron connections in your brain are automatically severed because you did not use that ability

- over long periods of time, it ll take you to a point where you wont be able to write a simple factorial program on your own without gpt telling you

- i am not saying this to incite you or mock you or anything. i am just concerned about how much of your thinking you are offloading

I am not offloading anything. I need way more critical thinking than I ever needed before to review solutions proposed by my digital slaves to evaluate whether they are garbage or good.

If you think that having slaves means you don’t need to be a good administrator, then you are sorely mistaken.

It requires more brainpower than it ever did to manage a project the size what used to do a 100 people team. All on your own.

The fact that I am arguing with all of you here and not blindingly follow the narrative should tell you all you need to know about my critical thinking prowess.

> I need way more critical thinking than I ever needed before to review

Review does not require more critical thinking than designing or building.

Designing is all I do basically. AI just a calculator but I tell it what to do and guide it.

Guys you cannot win this argument. We will soon be in a new era. It’s like the old math heads complaining about calculators.

Does anyone complain about calculators making us dumb nowadays?

You can of course avoid this tech like a plague and miss out and that’s fine. No one cares

> Does anyone complain about calculators making us dumb nowadays

It's a fact that people who rely on calculators for everything lose their skills at mental math

What do you think will happen when people rely on computers for everything?

Your new era is going to be full of idiots

And I wouldn't care about that except you all seem to be insisting on dragging everyone down with you

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48789042 bad idea bro

- also no gloating but i wanna mention something

- i dont use calculators anymore

- it was impossibly hard at first

- but my mind is adjusting to it slowly

- i can add and subtract 7 digit numbers effortlessly now

- i am still working on multiplication and division though but we ll get there slowly

- let me give you an example live

2949745 - 2947648

- my thought process to do this goes like this

- 1st 3 digits are same ignore

9745 - 7648

- 2nd step is to round off 9700 - 7700 = 2000, add 45 to it and it makes 2045 , we are still 52 short, add 50 to it and make it 2095, now add 2 and it becomes 2097

- see? no calculator needed

- i can do this faster than you can type the numbers above inside your beloved calculator

Thanks for this. My point is proven.

You haven’t proven anything sweetie

Move on with the times or go extinct like the dinosaurs

You’re confusing moving on with the times, and using new tools wrong

How did web3 and crypto work out for you buddy?

yes but tell your slopywriter to be less verbose, get to the point

No. I like my slop long, cope with it.

> because that’s how things will look like from now on.

No it's not.

People are increasingly getting fed up with slops like this -- you can see comments in HN discussions.

Many people just completely skip those articles.

More importantly, I’ve started my own little blacklist of people and site I just ignore.

There’s people at work whose messages get completely ignored after too many times of posting verbose, useless, ai slop.

> People are increasingly getting fed up with slops like this -- you can see comments in HN discussions.

Why claim 'people' (plenty of people get value from satisficing) and even try to use 'see comments in HN discussions' as if there is something that actually documents that ie 'we all think it'.

I skimmed it and even skimming it I got value from (what some others here) call 'slop'. (The value was basically it gave me an idea of something I could implement and again I didn't have to study it or even understand everything (or agree) just seeing someone did that made me think about something I might want to do.

If I want to read AI output, I’ll just ask my own AI. I’m not going to bother reading someone else’s AI.

It’s not my problem because I can safely skip ai slop without fomo.

It’s extremely rare that someone smart with something smart to say produces this crap.

Like someone said upthread if the author isn’t willing to spend time writing cogently then I don’t think it’s worth my time to try to parse it.

In the expression "AI slop", "AI" is about the tools, "slop" is about the content

"slop" is a perfectly valid judgement of content

surely if we're expected to read this ourselves, the author can write it themselves?

indeed, it's helpful to the author, too: writing helps you learn

I dunno, you'll notice several people here saying that got value from it, despite others not engaging with it at all. If your filter is that you don't engage with anything you don't expect a priori to get value from (based on weak signals), you'll miss a lot.

it's not that it might help or not, it's more like,

"if an AI wrote this, that means I can generate the exact same text (or better) myself, and be _even more_ helped, whenever I'm interested in this topic, by using AI"

having a blog full of ai content is like having a web page that's a list of links to searches for random keywords on google: what's your contribution? picking a topic? is that anything?

That's only if you assume the human didn't have any control over what the AI wrote, and I think that's more and more a very wrong assumption. It's easy to have a lot of control over LLM output, and to use expertise to steer it (non experts steer the LLM in very different directions compared to experts). And the output being raw text, it's also very easy to edit and refactor it to say what needs to be said. Some people are even (unconsciously or not) adopting AI colloquialisms in their own writing. I think it's becoming very unclear where human and AI content begins and ends.

> having a blog full of ai content is like having a web page that's a list of links to searches for random keywords on google

What's any blog? A person just presses a bunch of buttons on a keyboard, is that anything?

I think you dramatically overstate the human contribution, but if it exists, it would be seen by the author sharing their prompts. I can see how that might prove embarrassing, though, if their contribution is minimal, so I can see why so few people do it.

> What's any blog? A person just presses a bunch of buttons on a keyboard, is that anything?

If it's a human writing it, sure: it's a unique contribution by somebody who put forth effort to help others.

If it's just LLM output, then you might as well have a blog posting the results of random math equations from your calculator. Was any significant human effort involved? Odds are no, but "authors" using LLMs are free to prove otherwise by providing their prompts.

> judge the content

The content itself is slop.

did you edit it? did you fully read everything yourself and take out anything extra that didnt need to be in there like unnecessary comparisons and typical AI idioms? tweak the language to be less dramatic or emphatic about things that do not need emphasis?

AI is a great tool, but it is somewhere between a 3D printer and a CNC machine. it can make something smooth and easy to handle and maybe good enough for personal use but you would want to run it through some Finishing steps before giving its output to someone else. In some cases thats using the output as a mold for a full recreation and other times maybe its just sanding it a bit, smoothing out some rough spots and putting paint on it.

youre right not to care about if something was made by a human or a tool, but the full presentation of the content including editing is part of the content when it comes to a write-up.

If this isn't something worth your time to write, it probably isn't worth my time to read.

Just post the part you did write - the prompt.

People don't like this because you move the responsibility of verification to the reader.

Does the program cheat? Does it just query a table is saved in some backend? Maybe, I don't know, you don't know, and since the author only pressed enter once no-one will know until/if someone runs into any issues.

When you can create information for free, and you want people to use this information you need to provide guarantees, proof, and understanding beyond what the autonomous model has done. Otherwise you just move the burden of verification to the reader.