[ericb]

Is the percentage meaningful, though? If an LLM produces the most interesting, insightful, thought-provoking content of the day, isn't that what the best version of HN would be reading and commenting on?

If I invent the wheel, and have an LLM write 90% of the article from bullet points and edit it down, don't we still want HN discussing the wheel?

Not to say that the current generation of AI isn't often producing boring slop, but there's nothing that says it will remain that way, and a percent-AI assistance seems like the wrong metric to chase to me?

[never_inline]

Because why do you anti-compress your thoughts using LLM at all? It makes things harder to read.

[ericb]

I re-compress my thoughts during editing. That's how I write normally. First, a long draft, then a short one. Saving writing time on the long draft is helpful.

Slop is slop, whether a human or AI wrote it--I don't want to read it. Great is great. Period. If a human or AI writes something great, I want to read it.

Assuming AI writing will remain slop is a bold assumption, even if it holds true for the next 24 hours.

“I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

- Mark Twain

[threeseed]

> If an LLM produces the most interesting, insightful, thought-provoking content of the day, isn't that what the best version of HN would be reading and commenting on?

Absolutely not. Would much rather take some that is boring, not thought provoking but that was authentic and real rather than as you say AI slop.

If you want that sort of content maybe LinkedIn is a better place.