Why? "There is gravel in the food" is a perfectly valid contribution. You don't need to write a compelling story about it.

Because the article itself is way more interesting than the question of with what style it was written.

It's like the saying beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone. Bad AI writing makes an article "unreadable" - you'd have to force yourself to read it, and people don't get paid for reading stuff on HN. The HN value of an unpleasant to read article is basically zero.

I really don't want to waste more words on it here.

I think the difference might be that you find bad style easy to ignore and I don't.

If the applied style is painful, can't one just take a lightweight model and have it transcribe the content in a style that one personally finds pleasurable? Even phones should be powerfull enough to chew through such a task locally these days (even across languages), and once you define the criteria for what you enjoy you'll never have to be pained again (unless you enjoy it offcourse)

The criteria I enjoy is "written by a human".

You can pay someone to rewrite it. There's loads of college students who wouldn't mind extra spending money.

You don't have to leave a comment if you are too lazy to read it. It's not even if the words were written mirrored. Anyone who can read English including children can read the output of AI without needing to force anything. Maybe you need to see a doctor if you need to force yourself to read it.

"How dare you have a preference that is not my preference?"

Having a preference of writing style and being unable to read a writing style are not the same.

The comment upthread was:

> Bad AI writing makes an article "unreadable" - you'd have to force yourself to read it

That doesn't literally mean "unable to read", it means it's unpleasant. I don't think anyone in this thread has literally meant "I could not possibly read it", just "it's painfully unpleasant".

I wouldn't worry about the down votes. Human voice will eventually go the way of the pops, and hiss of dusty records. Eventually those raised on AI generated prose will come to appreciate it in the same way we have nostalgia for 96kbps mp3s.

Its interestingness is zero if it’s so aggravating to read that you just give up.

> Can we add a rule that if you blame someone for using AI, you _also_ have to bring something interesting to the table?

Criticism is a valid 'something interesting'. And growing numbers of us also don't want to feed the US mega-companies LLM training sets.

More and more people are keeping human-generated stuff to themselves, cause of that.

I’d rather this over the very long tradition in this site if people bellyaching about site design and layout on otherwise u related comment threads

I agree. One comment constructive is enough. It feels like some guys pushing the topic away.

It annoys me as it takes my attention with them so with all respect: user aharmetz (and others) please keep it in one post that you’d prefer non-AI text. Point.

Thank you.

> Can we add a rule that if you blame someone for using AI, you _also_ have to bring something interesting to the table?

No.