So much AI in the writing. If you dont care to write i do not care to read.
xyzsparetimexyz 1 hours ago [-]
'Hide one year. The other two predict its dip.'
I DESPISE this kind of slop prose
frmrtntn 9 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 5 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.
popularonion 55 minutes ago [-]
Well, I appreciate the advance warning, so I want to hear it.
SR2Z 1 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 31 minutes 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).
handoflixue 5 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 3 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 14 minutes ago [-]
How do you know who the intended readers of that comment were?
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3 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 1 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.
ContinuityLab 17 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 16 hours ago [-]
From the discussion:
> even got NASA to point a telescope at it for confirmation
colijobles 16 hours ago [-]
with a proper stats harness the false positive rate can be brought well down to acceptable levels
phoronixrly 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
binary132 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
roosterIllusi0n 4 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 17 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 12 hours ago [-]
I don't understand the downvotes on this topic. Almost everybody is in grey :)
handoflixue 5 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 7 hours ago [-]
The color of truth on HN.
justsomehnguy 5 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.
k310 17 hours ago [-]
Planet Claude?
Asking for a friend.
car 17 hours ago [-]
Claire maybe?
OzzyB 5 hours ago [-]
Claudina
HackerThemAll 17 hours ago [-]
Hope not.
higeorge13 17 hours ago [-]
This is incredible use of AI tools. Big kudos!
elzbardico 5 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 5 hours ago [-]
Sounds about right.
"Vibe-turfing"?
wartywhoa23 17 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 14 hours ago [-]
Like NASA?
amirkhanian 15 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 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
VCFundedGenYer 12 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
supersparrow 8 hours ago [-]
Why? We have been allowing technology to progress us for decades. Why stop now?
black6 11 hours ago [-]
We're coming back around to an era of the Citizen Scientist.
> "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...
I DESPISE this kind of slop prose
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
> even got NASA to point a telescope at it for confirmation
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.