Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

that ship has long sailed, "it no longer matters" saying a codebase, an article was written with AI doesn't mean much, it could be good, it could be bad. folks often say it to generate outrage, but that means nothing. is the codebase great, good, bad, terrible? that's the only thing that matters.


Even as someone who uses a lot of AI, if you can't be bothered to at least give it a prompt like "Go through the documentation and comments in detail and remove any obvious AI shibboleths like emdashes, it's not x it's y, rule-of-three, 'delve', excessive grandiosity and flourishes, boldness, bullet points, etc", you should receive a brisk kick in the rear.


I feel bad about most of my comments since this is the thing I say too. If you can't be bothered to write shit, why would I read your shit?


I'd be curious to know if there is a list of these "AI shibboleths" somewhere


Wikipedia maintains a list of smells for LLM text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing


Not really but they jump right out at you after a few minutes chatting with it. I also asked the AI and it was pretty subjectively accurate, especially if you force it to cross reference with web searches and especially google's ngram corpus (you can readily see that 'delve' and some of the other rhetorical constructs are quite uncommon in human speech)


Might be the only thing that matters to you. And, perhaps, the only thing that matters in a functional sense. But, whether it’s human-coded/written or not matters deeply to some.


And an LLM-written codebase is strongly correlated with a terrible codebase. So much so, that it's rarely worth your time to seriously evaluate it.


No, it's always bad. It's just on a spectrum of how competent is the viewer (you and me) to notice how bad it is. It's all shit, the question is whether you are skilled and experienced enough to tell.




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

Search: