Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> I wonder if there is a human being that wrote them or an LLM.

why does that distinction matter?

Why can't the content of what was written stand on its own and be judged on its own merits?




Really? People want to have discussions with other people. I don’t want the output of aggregate data that some tech company worth billions (or the wannabes) might offer. It is truly weird that this needs to be said.


I don’t want this to come across as too negative of a sentiment, but (…) a lot of online discussions are just people repeating opinions they heard elsewhere they agree with. AI is, in this regard, not that different. And marketing is a big part of it, so there are already companies with lots of weight behind making sure that people talk about only certain topics with certain viewpoints (i.e. the Overton window).

Actually original commentary in a discussion is bloody hard to come by.


Sure but the output of an LLM is _never_ original.

Human output signal might be wildly different from person to person if judged on originality. But LLM output is then pure noise. The internet wad already a noisy place but humans are “rate limited” to a degree an LLM is not.


That’s a strong claim. Originality is also a vague concept and not binary.


Where were those tangerine poems copied from?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: