Rendered at 05:48:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
_fuchs 22 hours ago [-]
So much AI in the writing. If you dont care to write i do not care to read.
xyzsparetimexyz 6 hours ago [-]
'Hide one year. The other two predict its dip.'
I DESPISE this kind of slop prose
cedws 3 hours ago [-]
Just reading that makes me angry. I’m so sick of reading shit like that.
efilife 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
hyperhello 42 minutes ago [-]
I'm sorry. But what that means makes perfect sense to me; he can combine any two of his data points to predict the third.
emil-lp 36 minutes ago [-]
Three comments that made sense. The fourth didn't.
frmrtntn 14 hours ago [-]
It's interesting that a few months ago your sentiment would have been upvoted. I've noticed recently that things seem to be flipping around. Sadly, I think it's inevitable that people will accept a form of communication that consists of people trading slop. Even worse, the author lies about using AI for the writeup in the comments.
tcdent 10 hours ago [-]
Commenting about AI tone in an article is the new commenting about the contrast between the font color and the background being too narrow. Nobody wants to hear it over and over and over again on every thread.
operatingthetan 5 hours ago [-]
Every article isn't AI written. If it is AI written, it is worth calling it out to save others time.
exe34 20 minutes ago [-]
I do. If somebody says it's written by AI, it saves me clicking on it and wasting my time.
popularonion 6 hours ago [-]
Well, I appreciate the advance warning, so I want to hear it.
dualvariable 4 hours ago [-]
On the other hand, I get mentally exhausted reading AI slop over and over again.
My brain can't help itself in looking for AI tells and gauging if writing sounds like AI or not.
Then once it latches onto the idea that the writing is probably AI, then it feels like half my brain is just reading the text looking for the AI smells.
Calling it "AI smells" like "code smells" might actually be what is going on in my brain, and I start code reviewing it at that level rather than reading it for what it does.
I really would prefer people not just post slop. I don't care if you use it to clean up your own writing, but don't just let it rip.
lynndotpy 5 hours ago [-]
I want to hear about it, and I am tired of seeing slop text over and over and over again on every thread.
It's not AI tone, that's not a thing, it's just low quality text.
wpm 2 hours ago [-]
Perhaps if they don't want to hear it they should stop upvoting the slop lazy crap articles to the front page in the first place.
LoganDark 5 hours ago [-]
You're right that nobody wants to hear it, but I think that's because nobody wants to find out over and over and over that every thread is AI generated. Not because when something is AI generated, they wouldn't like a heads up so they can find something else.
For example, I've had people thanking me for pointing out LLMish later in an article when it's not as obvious at the beginning. It saves the time of thinking the article is manually written when it'll later turn out to be AI instead.
Note that I don't necessarily have anything against AI in particular, but rather the chronic lack of information density typical of LLM-generated articles. Some articles that were LLM-assisted are still information-dense enough to keep me satisfied.
SR2Z 6 hours ago [-]
As someone who hates reading AI-written stuff (stylistically, I'm sure that someone could build an LLM that writes well) I have begrudingly accepted that it's here to stay.
However, I think that AI-slop is genuinely harder to read and less information-dense than stuff written by a person, and I catch myself abandoning articles and other written content early on when they smell too much like AI. It's simply less worth it to read them because I'll have to spend some precious time figuring out wtf the text is actually trying to say.
It seems like the flow is "User A writes bullet points and has a model convert them to prose to send to User B. User B then uses a model to convert the text back to bullet points."
I would in every case prefer the bullet points or raw transcript of the AI session to just the final output.
subscribed 6 hours ago [-]
It is harder to read, and it's especially egregious in the human-facing documentation or code comments.
It takes considerable effort, rules, examples, hooks and prompt to keep the popular $model reasonably concise, and yet STILL from time to time it starts vomiting absolute garbage.
At the moment the best recalibration is "shaming" it and showing both the negative (the vomit) and positive (slop replaced with human sentences). Good for a moment (up to 200k context).
King-Aaron 5 hours ago [-]
There's probably a lot of bot activity going on behind that shift in sentiment I'd imagine.
handoflixue 10 hours ago [-]
My good sir, I regret to inform you that the informality of the English language has been in decline for quite some time. Possibly since that vulgar bard Shakespeare abandoned all pretense of a shared language and raised a generation that thinks words like "fashionable"[sic!!] are real words.
However, it is notable that the rules of this particular venue request one be charitable to your fellow forum goers, and thus the admonition that their preferred communication is "slop" is generally considered unwelcome.
Would that you had only been able to word your own communication is in proper vocabulary and grammar; alas, I must conclude that even as you reject modernity, you have embraced the "slop" of the past.
But to address your last sentence: OP explicitly admits to using AI in the Reddit comments, and apologizes for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wzw8zd/i_think_i.... If you are going to repeat this libel, at least have the decency to provide some sort of citation
paimapi 8 hours ago [-]
is this supposed to be an example of bad writing because unnecessary bombast is definitely a sign of it
good writing is not just replacing random words with entries from thesaurus.com, it's writing for your reader. that's one thing LLM-generated text is very bad at - frequently violates the show-don't-tell rule, it lacks any interiority by it's very nature, etc
if you don't practice writing yourself, you don't develop the muscle of knowing what your reader's expectations are and you will forever remain a mediocre writer
NetMageSCW 5 hours ago [-]
How do you know who the intended readers of that comment were?
paimapi 4 hours ago [-]
I assume myself and others like me since it is being posted on a forum where each and every comment has not only an audience but a points-based rating system
Regardless of authorial intent, everything posted here is for the wider HN audience
handoflixue 58 seconds ago [-]
I will concede I had assumed a more educated audience, which could pick out reference to a particular linguistic style, rather than confusing it for a wild joy ride through thesaurus.com
Conversely, if you yourself write solely for points, then you might as well be a machine - for all reasonable virtues of truth, community, and free expression will find themselves at odds with such petty incentives. I am happy to lose a karma or two to speak my own mind, rather than playing puppet for your upvote.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 8 hours ago [-]
It reads as an example of English writing that was once considered "proper". The point I see is that it shows how this complaint about AI writing is history rhyming with itself again.
SR2Z 6 hours ago [-]
There is a difference between objections to style and objections to clarity and conciseness. My complaint with AI isn't that it's not formal enough, it's that there's so much bullshit and so little content in AI-generated blocks of text.
handoflixue 6 minutes ago [-]
"Slop" is generally meant as a derogatory label against anything in the AI vernacular - it is not an objection to clarity, it is a repudiation of the idea of using AI for writing at all.
It's the same tired game we play, as a society, any time a new writing style enters the mainstream. That game goes back to at least Shakespeare's era, where our illustrious bard was called out for his tendency to make up words ("fashionable" being, I believe, an actual example of this?)
efilife 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
__alias 20 hours ago [-]
Laughed at the reddit comment
> "We got vibe astronomy before GTA6"
lenkite 8 hours ago [-]
Can Claude Code find aliens too ? Maybe Anthropic needs to make a Claude Extraterrestrial Search Product.
iAMkenough 5 hours ago [-]
/goal prove alien life exists, at whatever cost
10 hours ago [-]
karim79 7 hours ago [-]
We'll probably have vibe intergalactic travel before Elder Scrolls 6 releases.
xyzsparetimexyz 6 hours ago [-]
No we won't
King-Aaron 5 hours ago [-]
yes we will
giancarlostoro 10 hours ago [-]
We got adobe suite in Rust vibe coded before GTA6 as well.
just this line "I chose what questions to ask, what tests mattered, and what counted as pass/fail."
ContinuityLab 22 hours ago [-]
Cool discovery, but I'd be real curious about the false-positive rate when letting coding agents loose on raw astronomical telemetry. Hallucinations in data reduction are no joke.
pizza234 22 hours ago [-]
From the discussion:
> even got NASA to point a telescope at it for confirmation
efilife 3 hours ago [-]
You are reproducing the AI summary of the thread. I can't find this claim anywhere
efilife 31 minutes ago [-]
It's there guys, I just missed it!
> TESS comes back to this part of the sky in November. I submitted an observing proposal asking it to record this star every 2 minutes while it's there.
> It was approved. Program #100.
colijobles 21 hours ago [-]
with a proper stats harness the false positive rate can be brought well down to acceptable levels
phoronixrly 22 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
binary132 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
roosterIllusi0n 9 hours ago [-]
If you can set the criteria for testing that a human would also use, then any llm can do the job.
What is uncool is how people are using cloud based AI and their universities are not providing self hosted models that keep data within the university. Cloud AI is useless due to it being no different than publishing everything you do publicly.
soltanov 22 hours ago [-]
Call me when peer review confirms it; until then, it is noise fitting noise.
(Reason: Clean cut through the hype directly to scientific validation.)
soltanov 17 hours ago [-]
I don't understand the downvotes on this topic. Almost everybody is in grey :)
handoflixue 10 hours ago [-]
It's hacker news, not academia news.
Dismissing something for lacking formal academic review is counter to the ethos of the site, and the link itself mentions that verification is coming in a month and there's at least a loose consensus of actual people that this might be valid.
If they'd said "excited to see if this replicates in November!" I would have at least believed that they'd read the link and/or had some interest in the topic.
I don't see any value in "this topic doesn't interest me", though
wartywhoa23 12 hours ago [-]
The color of truth on HN.
justsomehnguy 10 hours ago [-]
That's the usual state of things. I even vouched for a green comment because it was in a spirit yet for some it was not.
dkpk 3 hours ago [-]
I’m sure we’ll find Planet Nine soon.
k310 22 hours ago [-]
Planet Claude?
Asking for a friend.
car 22 hours ago [-]
Claire maybe?
OzzyB 10 hours ago [-]
Claudina
HackerThemAll 22 hours ago [-]
Hope not.
higeorge13 22 hours ago [-]
This is incredible use of AI tools. Big kudos!
elzbardico 10 hours ago [-]
Plot twist: The discovery is valid. But we figure out the author was not a innocent PM, but a team of astronomers working for Anthropic, And Anthropic's marketing department come up with the idea of crediting it to a PM. :-D
schiffern 10 hours ago [-]
Sounds about right.
"Vibe-turfing"?
wartywhoa23 22 hours ago [-]
Found a planet and saved a granny. Wake me up when this planet is acknowledged by any astonomer community with more say than r/ClaudeAI.
thiht 19 hours ago [-]
Like NASA?
amirkhanian 20 hours ago [-]
Not an astronomer, but I'm a non-programmer who spent two months building a fairly big web app with Claude, so the false-positive question is the one I'd ask too.
What saved me wasn't asking Claude whether it was right (it almost always says yes). It was checks that don't depend on its own report: run it on data where you already know the answer, and give a fresh session only the result and ask it to break it.
For a planet hunt I guess that means hiding a few fake planets in real data to see if it finds them, and running the same pipeline on shuffled data to see how many "planets" it finds in pure noise.
thatguy0900 16 hours ago [-]
[dead]
VCFundedGenYer 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
supersparrow 13 hours ago [-]
Why? We have been allowing technology to progress us for decades. Why stop now?
black6 16 hours ago [-]
We're coming back around to an era of the Citizen Scientist.
I DESPISE this kind of slop prose
My brain can't help itself in looking for AI tells and gauging if writing sounds like AI or not.
Then once it latches onto the idea that the writing is probably AI, then it feels like half my brain is just reading the text looking for the AI smells.
Calling it "AI smells" like "code smells" might actually be what is going on in my brain, and I start code reviewing it at that level rather than reading it for what it does.
I really would prefer people not just post slop. I don't care if you use it to clean up your own writing, but don't just let it rip.
It's not AI tone, that's not a thing, it's just low quality text.
For example, I've had people thanking me for pointing out LLMish later in an article when it's not as obvious at the beginning. It saves the time of thinking the article is manually written when it'll later turn out to be AI instead.
Note that I don't necessarily have anything against AI in particular, but rather the chronic lack of information density typical of LLM-generated articles. Some articles that were LLM-assisted are still information-dense enough to keep me satisfied.
However, I think that AI-slop is genuinely harder to read and less information-dense than stuff written by a person, and I catch myself abandoning articles and other written content early on when they smell too much like AI. It's simply less worth it to read them because I'll have to spend some precious time figuring out wtf the text is actually trying to say.
It seems like the flow is "User A writes bullet points and has a model convert them to prose to send to User B. User B then uses a model to convert the text back to bullet points."
I would in every case prefer the bullet points or raw transcript of the AI session to just the final output.
It takes considerable effort, rules, examples, hooks and prompt to keep the popular $model reasonably concise, and yet STILL from time to time it starts vomiting absolute garbage.
At the moment the best recalibration is "shaming" it and showing both the negative (the vomit) and positive (slop replaced with human sentences). Good for a moment (up to 200k context).
However, it is notable that the rules of this particular venue request one be charitable to your fellow forum goers, and thus the admonition that their preferred communication is "slop" is generally considered unwelcome.
Would that you had only been able to word your own communication is in proper vocabulary and grammar; alas, I must conclude that even as you reject modernity, you have embraced the "slop" of the past.
But to address your last sentence: OP explicitly admits to using AI in the Reddit comments, and apologizes for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wzw8zd/i_think_i.... If you are going to repeat this libel, at least have the decency to provide some sort of citation
good writing is not just replacing random words with entries from thesaurus.com, it's writing for your reader. that's one thing LLM-generated text is very bad at - frequently violates the show-don't-tell rule, it lacks any interiority by it's very nature, etc
if you don't practice writing yourself, you don't develop the muscle of knowing what your reader's expectations are and you will forever remain a mediocre writer
Regardless of authorial intent, everything posted here is for the wider HN audience
Conversely, if you yourself write solely for points, then you might as well be a machine - for all reasonable virtues of truth, community, and free expression will find themselves at odds with such petty incentives. I am happy to lose a karma or two to speak my own mind, rather than playing puppet for your upvote.
It's the same tired game we play, as a society, any time a new writing style enters the mainstream. That game goes back to at least Shakespeare's era, where our illustrious bard was called out for his tendency to make up words ("fashionable" being, I believe, an actual example of this?)
> "We got vibe astronomy before GTA6"
https://getartcraft.com/apps
Friend sent me this one, kinda glad people are learning what I learned with Claude 4.6… you can build anything at this point.
I've been tinkering with the latter for the last couple of months. Yesterday my system made some progress on instabilities on a particular superconductive system: https://colinocallaghan.com/autonomous-ai-research/Spatial-P...
> even got NASA to point a telescope at it for confirmation
> TESS comes back to this part of the sky in November. I submitted an observing proposal asking it to record this star every 2 minutes while it's there.
> It was approved. Program #100.
What is uncool is how people are using cloud based AI and their universities are not providing self hosted models that keep data within the university. Cloud AI is useless due to it being no different than publishing everything you do publicly.
Dismissing something for lacking formal academic review is counter to the ethos of the site, and the link itself mentions that verification is coming in a month and there's at least a loose consensus of actual people that this might be valid.
If they'd said "excited to see if this replicates in November!" I would have at least believed that they'd read the link and/or had some interest in the topic.
I don't see any value in "this topic doesn't interest me", though
Asking for a friend.
"Vibe-turfing"?
What saved me wasn't asking Claude whether it was right (it almost always says yes). It was checks that don't depend on its own report: run it on data where you already know the answer, and give a fresh session only the result and ask it to break it.
For a planet hunt I guess that means hiding a few fake planets in real data to see if it finds them, and running the same pipeline on shuffled data to see how many "planets" it finds in pure noise.