zlacker

slopman, the new strawman argument

>>verdve+(OP)
You just don't know which parts of the doc are real and which are hallucinated. Maybe the prompter checked everything and the content is actually good, but sadly many don't and there is a lot of slop flying around.

So if you want others to read the output you'll have to de-slopify it, ideally make it shorter and remove the tells.

If I go by good faith these days and trust that someone didn't just upload llm hallucinated bullshit, I'd sadly just be reading slop all day and not learning anything or worse even get deceived by hallucinations and make wrong assumptions. It's just a waste of someones precious life time.

LLMs can read through slop all day, humans can not without getting extremely annoyed.

>>jascha+6e
> You just don't know which parts of the doc are real and which are hallucinated.

It doesn't look like slop at all to me. GP claimed that this was written by ai without evidence, which I assumed to be based in bias, based on GP's comment history: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=jondwillis They complaint they have about the writing style is not the style that is emblematic of Ai slop. Then, considering the depth of analysis and breadth of connection, this is not something current Ai is up to producing.

Are you also assuming the article was written by an Ai?

>>verdve+4I
It's definitely LLM-written, or at least LLM-edited.