[figmert]

I wish HN would ban AI slop.

[benatkin]

Each article like this one is an opportunity to assess whether it's mainly written by an AI or not. After reading part of this one I mostly think not (except for the obvious AI generated image), but it would be amusing if it were. "I’ve been asked a few times about my approach to open-source in the past few weeks, so decided to write this article to structure my thoughts." Is this being told from the perspective of Claude or OpenAI? I assume across the millions of users this has been asked a few times in the past few weeks. If it's from the human perspective, perhaps while he was drafting it, the AI assistant asked him about his approach a few times so that it, and in this case each conversation counts as a separate character asking him for his thoughts about it. Either way it's easier to inflate the number of people asking the author's opinion. However, for this, I dug into the author's bio, and with almost 10k followers on X, it seems likely he did get asked this a bunch of times.

[figmert]

> Open-source is not a value statement. It’s a strategy.

> The only question that matters is this: Does open-source structurally help this product win?

> A hard filter first: Only technical users are emotionally sensitive to open-source.

> Important framing shift: OSS is not the product. OSS is the entry point.

> Open-source is powerful. But only when it is deliberate.

Finally, the random bolded bits of text.

This article is literally copy pasted directly from some LLM, and I'm fairly sure it's ChatGPT.

[carefulfungi]

(I'm editing to fix my tone).

Having first hand experience with building multiple open source and open core dev infra companies, the advice in this article is spot on. If it is AI slop, it's still good advice.

I'd prefer comments focused on content vs. trying to Turing-test AI generated text.

[eddythompson80]

It's not the tone, it's the content—just share your prompt

[figmert]

The content is useful only if it's fact-checked. The author evidently did not even bother editing the article, so how is anyone supposed to know whether it's factual or it's conjured out of some numbers.

[eptcyka]

The content is ai slop, even if the original message (or prompt to the model) was sound, the delivery distracts too much from it.

[marginalia_nu]

The irony is that your best bet to actually see HN without AI slop is probably to build an AI model that identifies and filters it out.

[jraph]

A crowdfounded approach where readers flag content would probably be work well, without relying on AI.

You'd possibly have to give more weight to readers who reliably flag stuff, which, ironically, LLM users might be better at statistically.