Yeah I stopped reading when I saw that, I don't care what GPT thinks and am completely allergic to the idiosyncrasies of LLM writing. Plus, yeah the whole idea they couldn't be bothered to write it, or as a corollary to think it through.

So, to be clear, you’re upset by their transparency that they used LLMs while plenty of other writers use it to:

  * brainstorm
  * reword hard sections they garbage’d out on accident
  * catch typos / formatting / flow issues 

But only because they chose strong transparency about their activity?

The disclaimer said the article was drafted with the help of an LLM - if they just did the list of things you mentioned I wouldn’t think they would need to put up a disclaimer (you don’t see disclaimers saying this article was written with the help of Google or Wikipedia) - the fundamental issue I think is that they are letting the LLM actually write the article, which I think people know, pretty viscerally, that they disagree with.

I had the same reaction, which is that I do not want to read something that was written by an LLM and immediately backed out - which is great I really appreciate their disclaimer, it helped me not waste my time on things I don’t personally want to consume.

Alternatively, they could be very, very conscious of being hyper-honest. There is a huge amount of overlap between people with a “strong sense of justice” (and honesty about using controversial technologies could be covered in that), and people on this forum.

You might not think that’s sufficient for a disclaimer; but if I was worried about AI use and wanted to be super duper up front, I would put that on my own journal if I used it for the things I mentioned.

Very anti-HN thinking to be posted here. I see a common trend in people loving blogging for it helps solidify their thoughts. Making an LLM do this is only wasting everyone time.

Whatever you think HN is, it isn't. People are not represented by a subdomain of an accelerator.

HN also drank the crypto-crap and NFT Kool-Aid. It's nice to see people able to not follow the groupthink.

> Whatever you think HN is, it isn't. People are not represented by a subdomain of an accelerator.

This is like something my racist grandmother says when I tell her a historical fact and she says you can’t tell me all plantation owners are racist because you didn’t meet them all or something similar ridiculous.

People can make statements from experience. Claiming HN doesn’t love blogs is out of touch.

The statement being made is not "HN doesn't love blogs".

The statement being made is "Very anti-HN thinking to be posted here."

Rather than present useless analogies, engage with what's actually been presented. I didn't ask about your grandmother.

> Rather than present useless analogies, engage with what's actually been presented. I didn't ask about your grandmother.

I guess I can’t make the statement that all HN users are not jerks.

Calling analogies useless because you won’t engage with others who disagree is rich.

It all comes down to the information content :)