In a world where anyone can ask an LLM to gish-gallop a plausible facsimile of whatever argument they want in seconds, it is simply untenable to give any piece of writing you stumble upon online the benefit of the doubt; you will drown in counterfeit prose.
The faintest hint that the author of a piece is a "GenAI" enthusiast (which in this case is already clear from the title) is immediate grounds for dismissing it; "the cover" clearly communicates the quality one might expect in the book. Using slop for hero images tells me that the author doesn't respect my time.
They very clearly were making a general claim, and stating their reasons too, rather than insinuating vague nothings like your comment. As I understood it:
Premise 1 : anyone can get an LLM to churn out "content" in minutes.
Premise 2 : reading "AI" slop is a poor way to spend one's time.
Premise 3 : someone who thinks those images are ok is likely to have a poorly developed capacity to differentiate between actual expertise and confident-sounding blah-blah-ing.
Conclusion : abort at the first sign that someone thinks that that vaguely confident-seeming world of half-truths and vibing is in any way acceptable.
It's a hard line, but I certainly can see the logic in it. One would be free to make exceptions in certain specific scenarios but the general thrust of the idea is excellent (for people who value their time, and want to read good things rather than feel-good things).
Your argument, on the other hand: it got traction on HN, therefore... something. Traction, or viewership, or ability-to-attract-attention, does not equate to value. And yes, I'm stating this as a general truth.
I agree, with some nuances. Premise 2 goes also without the word AI in the sentence.
Premise 3, there's no way to solve the fact that confident AI-or-not bla bla convinces people.
If one finds an article has bla bla vibes, be it from weirdly looking pics or from sounding overly optimistic, it is everyone's choice to skip (which makes sense!) or continue to look for any value or even entertainment. Do you stop watching a movie always when it doesn't have the correct vibes from the beginning?
Indeed convincingness does not equal to value.
The reason I reacted to the comment was largely its patronizing vibes.
In a world where anyone can ask an LLM to gish-gallop a plausible facsimile of whatever argument they want in seconds, it is simply untenable to give any piece of writing you stumble upon online the benefit of the doubt; you will drown in counterfeit prose.
The faintest hint that the author of a piece is a "GenAI" enthusiast (which in this case is already clear from the title) is immediate grounds for dismissing it; "the cover" clearly communicates the quality one might expect in the book. Using slop for hero images tells me that the author doesn't respect my time.