It doesn’t sound too AI generated, and the stories flow well without much text that mean nothing. (Also, she’s a consultant, so writing this content is meant to signal some professional skill. There’s not much spam, just 1 blog article a month.)
Even if it had AI help to edit, the content still matches my lived experiences of people mgmt.
It seems like AI to me as well. “That’s the gap” is a familiar Claude-ism, as are the references to a “pivot” and the use of “touch” to mean “affect”.
To be fair, I’ve reached the point where most random blog posts I read on the internet seem AI written, so it could just be confirmation bias on my part.
It seems enough people appreciated the story to upvote it though... but that assumes HN's algorithm is fair, it's free of bots, and the people voting are critical and honest on what they upvote.
In my opinion, it boils down to what ideas/experiences were seeded.
In this article for example, the author is clearly sharing their first-hand experience, therefore injecting observations from reality and their own reflection on top of it, and they then probably shaped/refined it with AI.
A slop, as I see it, is when you generate content from a very thin prompt and then share it as is.
Comments
Reads like an AI generated ad for coaching. Someone please chime in if you feel otherwise but IMO this one is not worth the read.
Hard disagree on “not worth the read”.
It doesn’t sound too AI generated, and the stories flow well without much text that mean nothing. (Also, she’s a consultant, so writing this content is meant to signal some professional skill. There’s not much spam, just 1 blog article a month.)
Even if it had AI help to edit, the content still matches my lived experiences of people mgmt.
It seems like AI to me as well. “That’s the gap” is a familiar Claude-ism, as are the references to a “pivot” and the use of “touch” to mean “affect”.
To be fair, I’ve reached the point where most random blog posts I read on the internet seem AI written, so it could just be confirmation bias on my part.
That means we are crossing the line and people can't tell anymore.
Most likely this is the author's story enhanced with AI and then edited. That is the future I think.
I think you're probably right
Right now I have a mental block with reading ai written or ai enchanced text. So unless the article has a pre-2021 date... I'll ask ai to summarize it
I think I'll eventually have to get over that bias
That's uh, an interesting solution. As long as it's your LLM?
But then you are reading an AI generated text as well?
Slop is slop, whether you edit it in or whether you generate it de novo.
It seems enough people appreciated the story to upvote it though... but that assumes HN's algorithm is fair, it's free of bots, and the people voting are critical and honest on what they upvote.
I disagree, I think this is too black and white.
In my opinion, it boils down to what ideas/experiences were seeded.
In this article for example, the author is clearly sharing their first-hand experience, therefore injecting observations from reality and their own reflection on top of it, and they then probably shaped/refined it with AI.
A slop, as I see it, is when you generate content from a very thin prompt and then share it as is.
Not hard data: ChatGPT and Gemini both say that the article sounds like written by a human most likely with AI assistance.
Doesn’t mean it’s not an ad for coaching. I share your sentiment. (So do ChatGPT and Gemini, they also agree that the article sounds like an ad)