Summarizer

Its ai written though, the tells are in pretty much every paragraph.

I don’t think it’s that big a red flag anymore. Most people use ai to rewrite or clean up content, so I’d think we should actually evaluate content for what it is rather than stop at “nah it’s ai written.”

>Most people use ai to rewrite or clean up content I think your sentence should have been "people who use ai do so to mostly rewrite or clean up content", but even then I'd question the statistical truth behind that claim. Personally, seeing something written by AI means that the person who wrote it did so just for looks and not for substance. Claiming to be a great author requires both penmanship and communication skills, and delegating one or either of them to a large language model inherently makes you less than that. However, when the point is just the contents of the paragraph(s) and nothing more then I don't care who or what wrote it. An example is the result of a research, because I'd certainly won't care about the prose or effort given to write the thesis but more on the results (is this about curing cancer now and forever? If yes, no one cares if it's written with AI). With that being said, there's still that I get anywhere close to understanding the author behind the thoughts and opinions. I believe the way someone writes hints to the way they think and act. In that sense, using LLM's to rewrite something to make it sound more professional than what you would actually talk in appropriate contexts makes it hard for me to judge someone's character, professionalism, and mannerisms. Almost feels like they're trying to mask part of themselves. Perhaps they lack confidence in their ability to sound professional and convincing?

> I don’t think it’s that big a red flag anymore. Most people use ai to rewrite or clean up content, so I’d think we should actually evaluate content for what it is rather than stop at “nah it’s ai written.” Unfortunately, there's a lot of people trying to content-farm with LLMs; this means that whatever style they default to, is automatically suspect of being a slice of "dead internet" rather than some new human discovery. I won't rule out the possibility that even LLMs, let alone other AI, can help with new discoveries, but they are definitely better at writing persuasively than they are at being inventive, which means I am forced to use "looks like LLM" as proxy for both "content farm" and "propaganda which may work on me", even though some percentage of this output won't even be LLM and some percentage of what is may even be both useful and novel.

I don't judge content for being AI written, I judge it for the content itself (just like with code). However I do find the standard out-of-the-box style very grating. Call it faux-chummy linkedin corporate workslop style. Why don't people give the llm a steer on style? Either based on your personal style or at least on a writer whose style you admire. That should be easier.

Because they think this is good writing. You can’t correct what you don’t have taste for. Most software engineers think that reading books means reading NYT non-fiction bestsellers.

While I agree with: > Because they think this is good writing. You can’t correct what you don’t have taste for. I have to disagree about: > Most software engineers think that reading books means reading NYT non-fiction bestsellers. There's a lot of scifi and fantasy in nerd circles, too. Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, Vernor Vinge, Charlie Stross, Iain M Banks, Arthur C Clarke, and so on. But simply enjoying good writing is not enough to fully get what makes writing good. Even writing is not itself enough to get such a taste: thinking of Arthur C Clarke, I've just finished 3001, and at the end Clarke gives thanks to his editors, noting his own experience as an editor meant he held a higher regard for editors than many writers seemed to. Stross has, likewise, blogged about how writing a manuscript is only the first half of writing a book, because then you need to edit the thing.

Very high chance someone that’s using Claude to write code is also using Claude to write a post from some notes. That goes beyond rewriting and cleaning up.

ai;dr If your "content" smells like AI, I'm going to use _my_ AI to condense the content for me. I'm not wasting my time on overly verbose AI "cleaned" content. Write like a human, have a blog with an RSS feed and I'll most likely subscribe to it.

Well, real humans may read it though. Personally I much prefer real humans write real articles than all this AI generated spam-slop. On youtube this is especially annoying - they mix in real videos with fake ones. I see this when I watch animal videos - some animal behaviour is taken from older videos, then AI fake is added. My own policy is that I do not watch anything ever again from people who lie to the audience that way so I had to begin to censor away such lying channels. I'd apply the same rationale to blog authors (but I am not 100% certain it is actually AI generated; I just mention this as a safety guard).

The main issue with evaluating content for what it is is how extremely asymmetric that process has become. Slop looks reasonable on the surface, and requires orders of magnitude more effort to evaluate than to produce. It’s produced once, but the process has to be repeated for every single reader. Disregarding content that smells like AI becomes an extremely tempting early filtering mechanism to separate signal from noise - the reader’s time is valuable.

If you want to write something with AI, send me your prompt. I'd rather read what you intend for it to produce rather than what it produces. If I start to believe you regularly send me AI written text, I will stop reading it. Even at work. You'll have to call me to explain what you intended to write.

And if my prompt is a 10 page wall of text that I would otherwise take the time to have the AI organize, deduplicate, summarize, and sharpen with an index, executive summary, descriptive headers, and logical sections, are you going to actually read all of that, or just whine "TL;DR"? It's much more efficient and intentional for the writer to put the time into doing the condensing and organizing once, and review and proofread it to make sure it's what they mean, than to just lazily spam every human they want to read it with the raw prompt, so every recipient has to pay for their own AI to perform that task like a slot machine, producing random results not reviewed and approved by the author as their intended message. Is that really how you want Hacker News discussions and your work email to be, walls of unorganized unfiltered text prompts nobody including yourself wants to take the time to read? Then step aside, hold my beer! Or do you prefer I should call you on the phone and ramble on for hours in an unedited meandering stream of thought about what I intended to write?

Yeah but it's not. This a complete contrivance and you're just making shit up. The prompt is much shorter than the output and you are concealing that fact. Why? Github repo or it didn't happen. Let's go.

I think as humans it's very hard to abstract content from its form. So when the form is always the same boring, generic AI slop, it's really not helping the content.

And maybe writing an article or a keynote slides is one of the few places we can still exerce some human creativity, especially when the core skills (programming) is almost completely in the hands of LLMs already

> I don’t think it’s that big a red flag anymore. It is to me, because it indicates the author didn't care about the topic. The only thing they cared about is to write an "insightful" article about using llms. Hence this whole thing is basically linked-in resume improvement slop. Not worth interacting with, imo Also, it's not insightful whatsoever. It's basically a retelling of other articles around the time Claude code was released to the public (March-August 2025)

>the tells are in pretty much every paragraph. It's not just misleading — it's lazy. And honestly? That doesn't vibe with me. [/s obviously]

So is GP. This is clearly a standard AI exposition: LLM's are like unreliable interns with boundless energy. They make silly mistakes, wander into annoying structural traps, and have to be unwound if left to their own devices. It's like the genie that almost pathologically misinterprets your wishes.

Then ask your own ai to rewrite it so it doesn't trigger you into posting uninteresting thought stopping comments proclaiming why you didn't read the article, that don't contribute to the discussion.

Did you just write this with ChatGPT?

I had to stop reading about half way, it's written in that breathless linkedin/ai generated style.

Pretty sure this entire comment is AI generated.

Almost think we're at the point on HN where we need a special [flag bot] link for those that meet a certain threshold and it alerts @dang or something to investigate them in more detail. The amount of bots on here has been increasing at an alarming rate.

There has been this really weird flood of new accounts lately that are making these kinds of bot comments with no clear purpose to making them. Maybe it comes from people experimenting with OpenClaw?