[thenewwazoo]

[flagged]

[tomhow]

We've been asking people not to comment like this on HN. We can never know exactly how much an individual's writing is LLM-generated, and the negative consequences of a false accusation outweigh the positive consequences of a valid one.

We don't want LLM-generated content on HN, but we also don't want a substantial portion of any thread being devoted to meta-discussion about whether a post is LLM-generated, and the merits of discussing whether a post is LLM-generated, etc. This all belongs in the generic tangent category that we're explicitly trying to avoid here.

If you suspect it, please use the the established approaches for reacting to inappropriate content: if it's bad content for HN, flag it; if it's a bad comment downvote it; and if there's evidence that it's LLM-generated, email us to point it out. We'll investigate it the same way we do when there are accusations of shilling etc, and we'll take the appropriate action. This way we can cut down on repetitive, generic tangents, and unfair accusations.

[dymk]

I don’t mind articles that have a hint of “an AI helped write this” as long as the content is actually informationally dense and well explained. But this article is an obvious ad, has almost no interesting information or summaries or insights, and has the… weirdly chipper? tone that AI loves to glaze readers with.

[tptacek]

How is this an ad? It's a couple thousand words about how they built something complicated that was then obsoleted.

[nbstme]

Why call it an ad? It’s not even on the company site. I only mentioned my company upfront so people get context (why we had to build a complex RAG pipeline, what kinds of documents we’re working with, and why the examples come from real production use cases).

[tptacek]

There are typos in it, too. I don't think this kind of style critique is really on topic for HN.

Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[sebmellen]

Those guidelines that you reference talk almost exclusively about annoyances on the webpage itself, not the content of the article.

I think it's fair to point out that many articles today are essentially a little bit of a human wrapper around a core of ChatGPT content.

Whether or not this was AI-generated, the tells of AI-written text are all throughout it. There are some people who have learned to write like the AI talks to them, which is really not much of an improvement over just using the AI as your word processor.

[titanomachy]

"This wasn't written by a person" isn't a tangential style critique.

[momojo]

I'm guessing first draft was AI. I had to re-read that part a couple times because the flow was off. That second paragraph was completely unnecessary too since the previous paragraph already got the point across that "context window small in 2022".

On the whole though, I still learned a lot.

[nbstme]

Thanks! Sorry if the flow was off

[sebmellen]

It truly is unfortunate. Thankfully most people seem to have an innate immune response to this kind of RLHF slop.

[Retr0id]

Unfortunately this can't be true, otherwise it wouldn't be a product of RLHF.