←back to thread

140 points handfuloflight | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.237s | source
Show context
samdoesnothing ◴[] No.46261425[source]
I'm really getting tired of gen AI and this article is like a perfect microcosm. Partially or at least fully AI generated, discussing a vibe-coded CMS built by an AI startup. It's several layers of marketing and no serious engineering.

Where are the grownups in the room?

replies(4): >>46261442 #>>46261481 #>>46261542 #>>46261754 #
Tenemo ◴[] No.46261442[source]
It does read very LLM-y to me, too. The short sentences, dramatic pauses – but maybe I'm oversensitive nowadays, it's really hard to tell at times.
replies(1): >>46261475 #
samdoesnothing ◴[] No.46261475[source]
There are some obvious tells like the headings ("Markdown is nice for LLMs. That’s not the point", "What Lee actually built (spoiler: a CMS)"), the dramatic full stops ("\nThis works until it doesn't.\n"), etc. It's difficult to describe because it's sort of a gut feeling you have pattern matching what you get from your own LLM usage.

It sort of reminds me of those marketing sites I used to see selling a product, where it's a bunch of short paragraphs and one-liners, again difficult to articulate but those were ubiquitous like 5 years ago and I can see where AI would have learned it from.

It's also tough because if you're a good writer you can spot it easier and you can edit LLM output to hide it, but then you probably aren't leaning on LLM's to write for you anyways. But if you aren't a good writer or your English isn't strong you won't pick up on it, and even if you use the AI to just rework your own writing or generate fragments it still leaks through.

Now that I think about it I'm curious if this phenomenon exists in other languages besides English...

replies(2): >>46261913 #>>46261973 #
1. kmelve ◴[] No.46261913[source]
Author here.

I don't know folks... Maybe I have been dabbling so much with AI the last couple of years that I have started taking on its style.

I had my digits on the keyboard for this piece though.

replies(1): >>46262210 #
2. samdoesnothing ◴[] No.46262210[source]
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for sure because I can see it's style rubbing off.

Someone linked this article you wrote from 7 years ago.

https://www.sanity.io/blog/getting-started-with-sanity-as-a-...

It's well written and obviously human made. Curious what you think as to the differences.