This is categorizing with a pretty broad brush, it seems. I took a look at a random day, and the articles that are claimed to be AI are Waymo publishing a model for self driving cars and a post about scams in Apple News ads.
Sure, Waymo’s model is AI and the scams in Apple News are often AI generated, but this isn't some sort of monoculture of LLM articles.
Ironically, this article could have been improved by using an LLM to categorize things and also publishing the prompt, so we could inspect what it means to “be AI”.
The article already states that distinction. It doesn’t say that everything is written by AI, the heatmap even has a legend with different colors for “article about ai” and “written by ai”
Most of the content is about using some data center based ML provider. My view is how so many ignore the environmental harm these constructs are doing; increasing ambient temperatures, inducing heavy metals into the water table, decreasing the access to water for human consumption in numerous drought areas, hostel ambient noise ... The wealth who are the majority finical backers do not care about these issues.
ML is a tool and hardly focused on it being able to operate as a local based solution. Frameworks are tie to expensive hardware. This creates a hyper pay-to-play scenario. While hand written coding can be done on a computer from 20 years ago. Local based solutions are the only means to decrease the wealth gap. Data center solutions increase the wealth gap.
I don't find value in ML summaries. I want to consume the answer and the ideas around them that lead to the answer. This creates more long-term value.
_Lobsters_ has now becoming my go-to with their posts being focused on ideas and concepts versus advertisements for large corporation ML based solutions.
I really wish there was a way to filter out discussions about AI on HN. It feels like lately they take up a good 1/3 of posts on the front page. I don't want to hear about some new AI startup.
Well your point on it being wrong to interact with a whole industry sounds more like a policy and political party line. This is just nerds discussing bleeding edge things.
It is a tragedy that a handful of irresponsible outlier datacenter operators have soured public opinion so thoroughly in the past 2 years. For comparison, Loudon County, VA is among the wealthiest in the country and is home to the largest aggregation of datacenters in the world. Yet these datacenters don't have the externalities that are mentioned here.
Note the intersection between eyewitness accounts of noise, water, and light pollution from datacenters and those datacenter owners' noteworthy political activity. To be specific, the operators of these datacenters are notorious bad actors in many different public spheres.
That study was so bad that I can’t believe it’s becoming an actual concern that people use against data centers. They were barely able to register a temperature increase a couple hundred meters directly downwind.
> _Lobsters_ has now becoming my go-to with their posts being focused on ideas and concepts versus advertisements for large corporation ML based solutions.
Lobsters has a funny obsession with being anti-AI, but the most commented posts on the front page are usually AI related.
> Lobsters has a funny obsession with being anti-AI, but the most commented posts on the front page are usually AI related.
The top five most filtered-out tags¹, excluding meta², are (in order): vibecoding, dotnet, php, emacs, ai. Two of the five are AI-related. The top spot (vibecoding) has 60% more people filtering it than the second spot.
I miss the old newsgroups. I wish we could land again in that weird, colorful oceans of geeky individuals with their quirks and interesting nerdy takes.
15 years ago, HN was about bootstrapping and early YC stars.
10 years ago, HN was in full VC-enterprise sauce.
5 years ago, it was crypto and NFTs, and how I switch jobs every quarter.
Now it is a blurry view into the future through the black mirror of AI.
How could we jump back into the cozy past again?
I do not have a clear answer, but what seems to work for you are small groups of friends and friends of friends hanging out on WhatsApp or Discord, discussing geeky news together in the context of their backgrounds. But these are very curated and very closed groups, still operating on the social media platforms of behemoths.
Would now be the right time to restart self-hosted message boards or Mattermost/Campfire instances?
I'm nostalgic for the new JS framework every day era. Say what you will about that era but people were writing the code by hand, so looking back it all feels "hand-crafted" and quaint. You had to copy paste that express app from a medium.com article instead of prompting an LLM to scaffold a whole project in one second.
> How could we jump back into the cozy past again?
"You can't go back home to your family, back home to your childhood ... back home to a young man's dreams of glory and of fame ... back home to places in the country, back home to the old forms and systems of things which once seemed everlasting, but which are changing all the time - back home to the escapes of Time and Memory."
The issue is the tech and the motives to wield it. Cosy decentralized message boards exist, thankfully outside the realm of the greater public.
The moment that the greater public sees these high trust networks and tries to join them, all the bad actors and their armies of bots will follow and I mourn for the recreation time of any admin who has to suddenly deal with that.
Private walled gardens seem to be the only way forward for now. If you love something, do not share it here
Run a self hosted forum or instance of whatever you like, and just only let people sign up if they are recommended by someone or can argue their way in, basically. xenforo and some add ons can do that, and I'm sure there's a few self hosted messaging apps like you mention but I'm not as familiar
I think it is a problem of how we changed: shorter attention spans, and a much larger volume of information to process.
Short forms win, long forms vanish, which is a tragedy in itself as good writing requires good understanding, and understanding is impossible without attention.
I'm in my 40s. I remember lcamtuf from pl.comp.security when I was just getting started playing with FreeBSD and other fun stuff.
IRC is small and niche enough to be a good place for more ephemeral discussion if you have a bouncer to stay connected for you. Chat on it tends to move slowly, and the userbase trends more towards actual nerds.
You don't even need explicit barriers, the masses are staying on Reddit/Twitter regardless. Only the discerning are seeking out better and newer options and those options are staying the right size rather than absorbing the eternal September.
Matrix works fine for the friend to friend, small community things. Discourse forums too. Use Signal for family and friends, perhaps work. Fediverse and Atmosphere (Bluesky) for your microblog needs, and RSS to keep track of blogs.
Having used Matrix for almost a decade, it's hot garbage.
Sync is barely working, "unable to decrypt" still exists, the encryption is flawed [0] and the whole thing is effectively just Element and everyone else follows their lead.
About the post you link, see [1] and [2], which makes me question both whether that is an actual vulnerability (Signal, the messenger recommended by the author, also didn't have that check, and it's addition is absent from release notes or CVEs) and whether the post was made in good faith (the check was added to libsignal on the same day that the author disclosed the vulnerability to Matrix, which can be a coincidence, but doesn't seem likely given that the code has been there for years).
Can't speak about the other issues, I haven't had those but I barely use it. Based on comments, it's clear they exist or have existed for quite some time.
I never cared much for newsgroups, they were mostly nice for the historical stuff. I do miss IRC though, as toxic as it could be. I could run it in a little terminal on any system without download electron apps and being spammed with ads (discord).
Democracies require conserved stake to function. How individuals initially get that stake is a degree of freedom, but if the stake can be printed freely, the system is unstable.
For working implementations of democracy, look at: invite trees, shareholder corporations, proof-of-stake distributed ledgers, etc.
If it were democratization, we'd all have access to the data that underlies this dataset. In reality, this will destroy the origins of the data, and it will become hidden for all of humanity.
It is a tragedy of the commons of the highest order.
They will talk about how they are trying to protect humanity all while putting it behind a paywall.
I joined HN 13 years ago (2 years after you), and back then I saw it as a bunch of libertarians and venture capitalists and some open source (and/or functional programming) enthusiast with a few interesting and nerdy projects. I was mostly here for the news about new and useful technology.
I think the visual weight of the first group has increased over time as their projects of making a bunch of money while offering nothing of value has been validated more and more by our capitalist economy.
I joined in 2008, that was even after lurking for a while, and it’s almost unrecognizable now in comparison has been for many years. Was mostly entrepreneurship, tech was present but was a means to an end. It wasn’t tech for the sake of tech, which is what it feels like in the recent past. The discussion on entrepreneurship topics seems to have an employee mindset more so than an owner mindset. I find it similar to how renters vilify landlords but being a landlord is not massively glamorous and can be quite risky, renters are generally out of touch with the costs involved and the profit of a landlord is all I’m saying. There’s definitely some shitty landlords tarnishing the reputation of them all. This is what has happened in tech too, the startups we loved turned evil. My gut reaction of any new tech product is no longer curiosity, it’s mistrust.
Anyhow - I find tech stuff interesting to a degree, but fundamentally I’m an entrepreneur that sees it as a tool. A means to an end. And I would love to find a place that still has that vibe. But anywhere entrepreneur related is always a cesspool of grift so it’s hard to find.
Reading about tech has become gradually less and less fun for me over the past 16 years.
Does anyone remember the awe that was felt the first time we encountered an iPhone. Or an iPad? I remember those days I would read tech news and sites like Ars Technica and comments were sometimes snarky and indignant but generally people were enthusiastic about reading tech because it offered glimpses into more technically advanced futures.
I wasn't browsing HN back then but I imaging the same thing was true of HN in the late 2000's and early 2010's.
Now tech sites like Ars Technica consistently have comment sections filled with immense negativity cynicism indigation and just plain old boiling rage. I avoid those comment sections now because reading such things negatively affects my mood and certainly isn't fun.
And over the past few years HN has gradually become more negative and nasty.
All this sucks. This isn't why I became interested in tech. This isn't why I used to spend time reading about technology and science.
All this sucks. This isn't why I became interested in tech. This isn't why I used to spend time reading about technology and science.
You're 16 years older now. You will have changed. HN has too, but looking back at how great it all was without also realising that your point of view is different means you're missing a big part of why it feels worse now. I've been here a long time too so I'm not going to claim I don't see the same thing, but I imagine someone who signed up 3 months ago won't have the same opinion as us old timers.
> but I imagine someone who signed up 3 months ago won't have the same opinion as us old timers.
that's for sure but if I got to know HN 3 months ago I would not be an active user. The content and discussions here are still interesting but the demographics that enjoy it changed over time and I (and OP) might not be the kind of people that would get interested anymore.
There is no "hacker" in HN anymore, unless we count the hustlers trying to cheat their way to success. Talking about that, there are so much psyops going on in so many threads that we, the old hackers, are the ones getting hacked.
I still maintain the notion that tech was most exciting/peaked around 2010. Macs were awesome (and the Intel transition was complete at full strength), things were fast, OSes weren't bloated, and we didn't have flavor-of-the-month fads like cloud, crypto, NFTs, or AI.
I can't recall who said it, but "The biggest problem with golden ages is that you never realize you're in one until it's over".
There were several golden ages of tech for most people who went through them:
- the pre-internet run-up of personal computing (~1975-1995)
- the early internet (~ 1990-1998)
- the big post-dot com crash tech boom (~ 2003-2020, but more of a golden age for employees)
However, almost all golden ages (including non-tech ones) end for the same reason (the ranges above I'm excluding the last phase). Early adopters (tech enthusiasts), early implementations that focus on them, then mass market appeal that "dumbs it down", then the financialization as accountants and grifters start showing up. Same thing happened to Hollywood, the music industry, etc.
We're now squarely in the last phase of the post-dotcom boom.
(I'll also note that the timeframes are arguable - I'm not going to get into quibbles over minutiae)
> In the first half of the month, roughly 60% of the daily HN lineup was AI-related or AI-generated, tapering off to ~50% as we approached the end of the month. This is up from 40% in February.
This aligns with my much less scientific research. Every now and again, when I remember to do it, I will skim the top 10 stories and count how many are AI-related. I find it is very consistently in the 4-6 bracket. Probably a majority of the time, 5 out of 10 articles are AI-related, and very rarely does it drop below 4 out of 10. It also rarely goes over 6 out of 10, but I can remember it happening a couple of times.
In fact, the proportion of AI representation in the top 10 is so consistent (in my, again, unscientific experience) that I wonder if it is being moderated one way or the other.
Personally I find it boring that one topic gets so much discussion but who am I to argue. I do my bit by making sure to upvote non-AI stories that I find interesting.
My reaction is: that's an appropriate amount. AI is probably the biggest thing to happen (in tech) in the last two decades, so I think it's fair that it's taking up a lot of the discourse.
It seems a bit self-reinforcing. AI makes almost zero (positive) impact on my day to day life and isn't actually something I interact with directly and the same holds true for most people I talk to.
There's a few of my friends in tech for whom AI has obviously massively changed how they work, but again not in a clear positive direction.
To me there seems to be a push to heavily prompte LLMs, even thought the benefits aren't all that clear yet. Some people are seeing massive improvements in how they work and it's understandable that they, like with blockchains or Kubernetes previously want to share their optimism. I just question if maybe these people are being to louder and have to much influence. There's a large silent majority for whom all the AI stuff is almost completely pointless.
It does need to take up more space on HN, compared to your normal media, because the technology needs to find it's way into applications and appliances. The hype will die down, especially once we start to see the actual costs, e.g. ChatGPT doesn't actually provide enough value for the average user to warrant a subscription, hence the ads. For now, it seems that AI is heavily pushed by industry and a group of fans, the amount of news and articles just doesn't line up with the actual daily use.
I don't think that AI has to influence every single person's daily life to make a huge impact. I think for probably 90% of people it's pretty useless out side of being a better search engine. But that doesn't mean it won't have a huge impact on science and technology at large. There are a lot of snake oil salesmen trying to stick it into everyone's face, but I don't think that should be conflated with the real progress that's being made.
There's also a part of me that misses the earlier days of Hacker News when the subject matter was much more eclectic and seemingly every day I'd have a chance to learn about something completely different.
And that's maybe what I miss. Nowadays Hacker News feels increasingly like another social media platform: mostly a lot of opinions, war stories, and self promotion. That feeling of serendipity that so characterized earlier ages of the Web is fading here, too.
Yes, it's appropriate given the metric you have chosen ("big"ness), though maybe the word should then be "expected", since "appropriate" implies some kind of broader human-oriented concept of rightfulness/goodness.
Upvoted: I was going to write this exact reply. Everyone is a bit tired of hearing about AI, but it's advancing fast and it's the most important thing right now. As Demis says, if we get to ASI, we can solve all other issues with it.
Actually, it (LLM models) has been advancing slower for a while. This is pretty much in the mainstream. And the current approach is facing all sorts of obstacles that are not exclusively technological. The compute needs are no longer sustainable. Financially, big labs are drowning in debt and backlash against data centres has grown so much that it has become an electoral topic in at least one major country.
why exactly do we want ASI, and further, if we DID, why on Earth would we want it controlled by the likes of Sam Altman, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, and Larry Ellison?
Problem is other cool hacky stuff gets drawned out. Nobody votes on those because I imagine it's no longer attractive to the type of visitor that HN attracts now. I reckon there's many more non-tech, "make me a millionaire" gold rush crowd here, as cynical as it sounds. I base that on pure logic, since it's kind of inevitable with AI having delivered a massive democratization of tech knowledge, but also on the amount of snarkier, shorter, less technical, less logical, one short sentence type of comments.
I know it's been said countless of times before, but I think this community has truly changed within last year.
You really have to expand the list to ridiculous levels before you get to something as big. We've already left humans behind in many ways (but in others we've failed to build LLMs that know how to find the gaps in implementation that humans are leaving out)
Cynics really say stuff like "but it's been 3 years and all they can claim is that it's changed text to speech, speech to text, photos to text, text to photos, programming, cybersecurity, research, mathematics, war...
"They lie about it being dangerous!" and simulataneously "They hacked a system with zero day exploits! Everyone involved should goto jail!"
Tech leaders are awful, but it is just that we've built a society that enables the most awful among us to benefit the most. It has never been the case that tech leaders are particularly amazing, they are just amazing at exploitation.
Feels more like another blockchain hype cycle to me.
Especially the part where we're always on the cusp of the entire world changing while the biggest change is just that huge sums of money changed hands, inducing psychosis in a large group of investors.
I know what you're saying, there is a lot of speculation going on in AI right now. The difference is there is hard evidence of AI capabilities accelerating now: we've gone from toy chatbots to sort-of useful coding helpers to agents solving novel math problems in 3.5 years. We could plateau any day and a lot of investors would be stuck holding the bag, or we could continue on that trajectory and they'll make crazy profits. With crypto, the bet was always "how much money will people keep sticking in this market?" which seems a lot more flawed to me.
The irony with blockchain is that it also had a bunch of real life use cases but the sheer extremity of the hype cycle managed to actually prevent them from being effectively brought to life.
There was a lot of genuinely useful tech that blockchain could have facilitated and all we were left with in the end was a mountain of scams and bitcoin.
I'm seeing something similar with AI where the genuinely useful stuff is getting washed out by the hype simply because it's a gradual improvement and not "disruptive". Meanwhile the stuff sold as disruptive like vibe coding is mostly bullshit.
All HN users can be part of the solution. Help mods by emailing them at hn@ycombinator.com. I recently pointed out a suspicious pattern, and the mods were able to use that to track and ban a collection of accounts.
Some users on HN are "allowed" to do breathless AI self-promotion on HN and other readers support them by posting it anyway. Other HNers on the other hand, got banned immediately for doing the same thing.
That is why many users here realized that there are protected accounts that can do that and everyone else cannot. Even in rare circumstances, the moderators sometimes unbeknownst to them, may also be indirectly allowing it.
It is far more complicated and one of the reasons why users here are fed up of the constant AI deluge on this orange site and nothing is changing other than there is more of it.
I’ve had some luck messaging the moderators and calling them out for it. They may or may not do it on purpose, I have no idea. But it has worked to get certain golden children at least flagged when they’re doing things that would get others straight up banned.
I've been noticing in recent months that even when the article is in no way related to AI, there's often comments trying to steer it into AI, often in a way that makes no sense at all. It has a way of becoming its own parody.
HN is a reflection of the industry and you'd have to be living under and rock (or in denial) to ignore LLMs. People who complain about it give off a real "kids these days"-vibe that has been present on HN for the entire time I've been here. There are _always_ people complaining about the current infatuation (and I'm sure I've been one of them).
I find the posts/comments bemoaning the pervasiveness of LLMs on HN to be more tiring than even some of the more annoying LLM posts.
If HN didn't feature LLM-related content there would be people, rightful so, complaining that we are ignoring a huge thing happening in the industry.
I'm deeply disappointed that many of the stories on HN are directly or indirectly about A.I. and LLMs. To me this is a complete turn-off. OTOH this seems to be the case everywhere in the IT landscape these days.
Many people interested in technical stories have mostly stopped reading computing related news. I know people that used to host talks about .NET software development quit because they hated all .NET developments pushed by Microsoft were related to Azure or A.I. These are developers that want to build software, not scream to/plead with an LLM to do it for them. It simply takes the fun out of being a software developer. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that in a couple of years many people will leave the sector because it's no fun anymore. Management is forcing you to use your (supposed) future replacement.
I think grief is appropriate for the part of the software engineering craft that has been lost, because it was genuinely fun and rewarding at times, and I don't think it'll ever come back. Sure, some of us will hack on things manually for fun here and there, but even that will likely become ever more niche, like doing your laundry with a washboard. And professionally, no one is going to be writing code without LLMs before long. That world is gone, and it's OK to mourn it.
I think its very easy to note and come to the conclusion that this is the most disruptive tech of our industry. HN is full of people from all walks of life, but people from all walks of life are using AI (or LLMs). The way I hear people describe using AI is the way people used to talk about Google.
As much as I am one of the "In Betweeners" of AI (not hyper loving, nor hyper hating it) I do wish HN wasn't flooded with it, but its just the nature of LLMs currently, they are the new thing that has taken over our society in a drastic way, those who pretend otherwise will be surprised to know that the rest of society has moved forward with it.
The thing is, the AI-related topics are pretty easy to skip. Sure, you may have to go to the second page to see the same number of non-AI stories that you used to see on the front page alone, but you can just not click on them. (Same with politics, BTW.)
But AI-generated content is harder, both stories and comments. HN does moderately (heh) well at filtering them out, but I would like better.
(That's the first one I found, maybe there were others)
So...are you complainers all using it? If not, why not?
Spoiler -- because when someone says "I'm tired of reading about {X}", they're really saying "I want everyone else to stop talking about {X}". This has happened repeatedly over HN's life, and it just betrays how emotional people get when they feel that they can't control the narrative.
> I can't tell the difference so what does it matter?
It matters because you’re not the only human on HN and others have difference preferences. “I don’t care about this particular issue” is not the same thing as “this particular issue isn’t important”.
> you shouldn't be surprised that everyone on HN is all over it.
Not the argument either. No one is “surprised” this happens, people (obviously not all, but a significant number) are annoyed by it.
the most annoying thing, for me, brought on by llms is that almost every HN submission now has the exact same conversation on it.
without fail, if the submission has text, someone says it is ai generated. other people concur. someone says it probably isn't. someone else says that it shouldn't matter if the content is good. small argument about the accuracy of ai detection tools.
rinse and repeat on every damn submission. often times this is the dominant comment chain regardless of what the actual submission topic is. it bugs me more than the fact that half of the front page is ai promotion.
"At the same time, it has a fair number of toxic commenters, making it a dependable source of insults hurled in my general direction; if you want a taste, {another article by same author} has been called “watered-down” and “slop”."
We have gotten to the point where it is virtually guaranteed that some commenter to almost any given article will have an oversensitive AI detector and accuse the author of it being AI. I swear there's people whose AI detectors are just
def is_content_ai(content):
return True
Occasionally such people also complain about how much of the world is AI now... well... yeah, that's what happens when that's your detector. It's not quite that bad, as bad as it is.
I don't know what to do about it. Discussion about AI provenance of a given work is often a valid topic. When YouTube shovels an AI channel at me and it briefly penetrates my defenses, it's heartening to see the commentors trying to warn people about it, shortly before I block the channel.
(It's annoying that so many legit channels, which I know are legit because they predate AI and the same person is on camera as before, have switched to heavily-AI thumbnails. That's the hole that the other channels sometimes get me with, because just having an AI thumbnail doesn't prove it's not a legit channel now.)
On the other hand, the chorus of very annoyed people who are very annoyed because they see AI everywhere who see AI everywhere because they literally see AI everywhere are becoming a bit of a nuisance themselves.
The truth is, writing is hard and time consuming, and most people are uncomfortable with the process. AI is a very easy shortcut to lucid, logical, authoritative text. Like sugary drinks and snacks, people can't resist. Add in the pressure to keep up with everyone else and the choice is easy -- spend a few days drafting and editing, or a few minutes chatting with an LLM before hitting post?
AI has rapidly destroyed, completely destroyed, the remaining authenticity on the internet. The majority of articles are AI generated. And yeah at this point its futile to keep pointing it out. Human prose has been eliminated.
> We have gotten to the point where it is virtually guaranteed that some commenter to almost any given article will have an oversensitive AI detector and accuse the author of it being AI.
Well... when the utter majority of articles written about topics surrounding AI are written with AI and a ton of newcomers to the reverse-engineering and even hardware hacking communities now have AI do their work for them, even the last remnants of areas that used to be "for humans only" are now contaminated with AI.
Of course people end up being very sensitive. I come to HN to read words written by humans, not fluff hallucinated by an LLM.
>I come to HN to read words written by humans, not fluff hallucinated by an LLM.
yeah, but now a good chunk of the human-written words in the comments section are "ai slop", or some portmanteau of slop and something else. not particularly enlightening reading.
"That said, the recent shift feels more profound: almost every day, it feels that the lineup is dominated by stories focused on AI, written by AI, or commented on by AI."
I interpreted that as surprise. I apologize if you disagree.
There is some LLM detection for comments that auto-flags them.
It has some unfortunate side effects, though. Namely on a thread where people are discussing a text-heavy post that is LLM-authored, quoting a large enough block of that content appears to trigger it sometimes. Makes sense that it does, but..
Contrary to popular belief, it's quite easy to spot something written with AI. You just need the skill/gift. I usually spot them rather quickly and will flag on sight. Other users will do the same.
Is Pangram's detection capability considered to be on the higher side? This post seems to be written under the assumption that Pangram's detection is highly effective. Is it actually considered to be on the higher side in English-speaking circles?
Pangram links several third party evaluations [1] that all seem to agree with 90+% detection, and very close to 0% false positives. Obviously those could be cherry picked, but I’ve yet to see arguments to the contrary that actually include any supporting data. (E.g here’s a prompt that will get Claude to spit out text that pangram doesn’t detect or here’s an article authored in 2018 that pangram says is AI.) Detection is an arms race, so this could change (though I’d expect in the direction of false negatives), but right now it seems like defense is winning.
The "could" isn't required here, since Pangram calls many of the evals "collaborations", and some received direct support. Results that don't favor Pangram as being among the least-worst of a questionable product category* surely wouldn't be featured.
As someone who has been posting here since 2010, I don't blame AI. The exodus started long ago and continues to evolve over time. It is unfortunate what this place has become due to poor quality of moderation. Lobste.rs just hits better, and Reddit isn't half-bad as purported.
Did not read the article, but I would say about 40%.
Btw, you can toggle [showdead] in profile settings, then you'll see messages caught by moderators, which are sophisticated bots (writing style at ChatGPT3 level) + absolutely valid points that lash out on ruling class, SV mentality, US and Israel.
Much of these are caught by users downvoting and/or flagging. I think the lack of a public moderation log makes people think the mods are constantly running around every story/comment to steer the site when really it's the users doing most of the grunt work while the moderators only step in occasionally for the more serious items.
This is categorizing with a pretty broad brush, it seems. I took a look at a random day, and the articles that are claimed to be AI are Waymo publishing a model for self driving cars and a post about scams in Apple News ads.
Sure, Waymo’s model is AI and the scams in Apple News are often AI generated, but this isn't some sort of monoculture of LLM articles.
Ironically, this article could have been improved by using an LLM to categorize things and also publishing the prompt, so we could inspect what it means to “be AI”.
The article already states that distinction. It doesn’t say that everything is written by AI, the heatmap even has a legend with different colors for “article about ai” and “written by ai”
AI has turned me away from HN more and more.
Most of the content is about using some data center based ML provider. My view is how so many ignore the environmental harm these constructs are doing; increasing ambient temperatures, inducing heavy metals into the water table, decreasing the access to water for human consumption in numerous drought areas, hostel ambient noise ... The wealth who are the majority finical backers do not care about these issues.
ML is a tool and hardly focused on it being able to operate as a local based solution. Frameworks are tie to expensive hardware. This creates a hyper pay-to-play scenario. While hand written coding can be done on a computer from 20 years ago. Local based solutions are the only means to decrease the wealth gap. Data center solutions increase the wealth gap.
I don't find value in ML summaries. I want to consume the answer and the ideas around them that lead to the answer. This creates more long-term value.
_Lobsters_ has now becoming my go-to with their posts being focused on ideas and concepts versus advertisements for large corporation ML based solutions.
I really wish there was a way to filter out discussions about AI on HN. It feels like lately they take up a good 1/3 of posts on the front page. I don't want to hear about some new AI startup.
Having a set of tag presets would help somewhat for filtering.
A lot of those environmental claims are not accurate, or substantially overblown.
Heavy metals in the water table is a new one I haven't heard before, and I'm skeptical.
Most of this is motivated reasoning by people who don't like AI for other reasons and are just looking for justifications to shut it down.
Well your point on it being wrong to interact with a whole industry sounds more like a policy and political party line. This is just nerds discussing bleeding edge things.
Bleeding something, alright.
I'm sure some of the career chemists et al at IG Farben and BASF felt similarly in 1945.
There is no amoral middle ground where any of this is detached from its context. Context is everything.
It is a tragedy that a handful of irresponsible outlier datacenter operators have soured public opinion so thoroughly in the past 2 years. For comparison, Loudon County, VA is among the wealthiest in the country and is home to the largest aggregation of datacenters in the world. Yet these datacenters don't have the externalities that are mentioned here.
Note the intersection between eyewitness accounts of noise, water, and light pollution from datacenters and those datacenter owners' noteworthy political activity. To be specific, the operators of these datacenters are notorious bad actors in many different public spheres.
> increasing ambient temperatures,
That study was so bad that I can’t believe it’s becoming an actual concern that people use against data centers. They were barely able to register a temperature increase a couple hundred meters directly downwind.
> _Lobsters_ has now becoming my go-to with their posts being focused on ideas and concepts versus advertisements for large corporation ML based solutions.
Lobsters has a funny obsession with being anti-AI, but the most commented posts on the front page are usually AI related.
> Lobsters has a funny obsession with being anti-AI, but the most commented posts on the front page are usually AI related.
The top five most filtered-out tags¹, excluding meta², are (in order): vibecoding, dotnet, php, emacs, ai. Two of the five are AI-related. The top spot (vibecoding) has 60% more people filtering it than the second spot.
¹ https://lobste.rs/filters
² In the sense of being about the website itself, not Facebook’s parent company.
Wait, how is Emacs AI-related aside from being written in Lisp?
It’s not. Neither is php or dotnet. I meant to write “two of the five”, not “three of the five”. Fixed. Sorry about the confusion.
One AI psychotic's "barely able to register" is another person's "increasing ambient temperature".
I don't even care about the environmental aspect- it's just so...un-hackerlike and boring. Where are all the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels?
Not in Silicon Valley tech lol!
Your parent is referring to a nostalgia for the Silicon Valley hacker ethos from the 1980s.
Do you have lobsters invites?
Democratization of access has its victims.
I miss the old newsgroups. I wish we could land again in that weird, colorful oceans of geeky individuals with their quirks and interesting nerdy takes.
15 years ago, HN was about bootstrapping and early YC stars.
10 years ago, HN was in full VC-enterprise sauce.
5 years ago, it was crypto and NFTs, and how I switch jobs every quarter.
Now it is a blurry view into the future through the black mirror of AI.
How could we jump back into the cozy past again?
I do not have a clear answer, but what seems to work for you are small groups of friends and friends of friends hanging out on WhatsApp or Discord, discussing geeky news together in the context of their backgrounds. But these are very curated and very closed groups, still operating on the social media platforms of behemoths.
Would now be the right time to restart self-hosted message boards or Mattermost/Campfire instances?
I'm nostalgic for the new JS framework every day era. Say what you will about that era but people were writing the code by hand, so looking back it all feels "hand-crafted" and quaint. You had to copy paste that express app from a medium.com article instead of prompting an LLM to scaffold a whole project in one second.
> How could we jump back into the cozy past again?
"You can't go back home to your family, back home to your childhood ... back home to a young man's dreams of glory and of fame ... back home to places in the country, back home to the old forms and systems of things which once seemed everlasting, but which are changing all the time - back home to the escapes of Time and Memory."
Well sometimes you can
Discord is actively torpedoing small, niche, or marginalized communities. Not a safe place.
The issue is the tech and the motives to wield it. Cosy decentralized message boards exist, thankfully outside the realm of the greater public.
The moment that the greater public sees these high trust networks and tries to join them, all the bad actors and their armies of bots will follow and I mourn for the recreation time of any admin who has to suddenly deal with that.
Private walled gardens seem to be the only way forward for now. If you love something, do not share it here
On the topic, I agree smaller groups are the only way to achieve this.
Here is a protptype of how easy it is to setup a forum on onionv3 service. Just a few commands and your off.
https://gitlab.com/here_forawhile/torum
Run a self hosted forum or instance of whatever you like, and just only let people sign up if they are recommended by someone or can argue their way in, basically. xenforo and some add ons can do that, and I'm sure there's a few self hosted messaging apps like you mention but I'm not as familiar
I do not think this is a technology problem.
I think it is a problem of how we changed: shorter attention spans, and a much larger volume of information to process.
Short forms win, long forms vanish, which is a tragedy in itself as good writing requires good understanding, and understanding is impossible without attention.
I'm in my 40s. I remember lcamtuf from pl.comp.security when I was just getting started playing with FreeBSD and other fun stuff.
I still use a forum like that. You don't need an enormous community to have good discussions - 100 active users creates quite a lot.
It's a community issue, not a technical one, but you have to intentionally create the community.
IRC is small and niche enough to be a good place for more ephemeral discussion if you have a bouncer to stay connected for you. Chat on it tends to move slowly, and the userbase trends more towards actual nerds.
I think you answered your own question, simply un-democratize access. Go places with high barriers of entry.
You don't even need explicit barriers, the masses are staying on Reddit/Twitter regardless. Only the discerning are seeking out better and newer options and those options are staying the right size rather than absorbing the eternal September.
Matrix works fine for the friend to friend, small community things. Discourse forums too. Use Signal for family and friends, perhaps work. Fediverse and Atmosphere (Bluesky) for your microblog needs, and RSS to keep track of blogs.
Having used Matrix for almost a decade, it's hot garbage.
Sync is barely working, "unable to decrypt" still exists, the encryption is flawed [0] and the whole thing is effectively just Element and everyone else follows their lead.
[0]: https://soatok.blog/2026/02/17/cryptographic-issues-in-matri...
About the post you link, see [1] and [2], which makes me question both whether that is an actual vulnerability (Signal, the messenger recommended by the author, also didn't have that check, and it's addition is absent from release notes or CVEs) and whether the post was made in good faith (the check was added to libsignal on the same day that the author disclosed the vulnerability to Matrix, which can be a coincidence, but doesn't seem likely given that the code has been there for years).
Can't speak about the other issues, I haven't had those but I barely use it. Based on comments, it's clear they exist or have existed for quite some time.
[1] https://blog.erinshepherd.net/2026/02/non-contributory-keys-...
[2] https://matrix.org/blog/2026/02/analysis-of-reported-issues-...
Element in particular is embarrassingly bad. (Consistently, for the past 5 years, through the present)
I never cared much for newsgroups, they were mostly nice for the historical stuff. I do miss IRC though, as toxic as it could be. I could run it in a little terminal on any system without download electron apps and being spammed with ads (discord).
You forgot to mention the "JS-framework-of-the-month" years :-D
also known as the good old days
Some weeks ago, a colleague laughed at me when I asked: "btw, do we use jQuery somewhere in our web app?" - he said, its no more a thing today.
Is that true?
(Im out of webdev for years)
> Democratization of access has its victims.
Democracies require conserved stake to function. How individuals initially get that stake is a degree of freedom, but if the stake can be printed freely, the system is unstable.
For working implementations of democracy, look at: invite trees, shareholder corporations, proof-of-stake distributed ledgers, etc.
"Democratization of access has its victims."
If it were democratization, we'd all have access to the data that underlies this dataset. In reality, this will destroy the origins of the data, and it will become hidden for all of humanity.
It is a tragedy of the commons of the highest order.
They will talk about how they are trying to protect humanity all while putting it behind a paywall.
I thought we were all about inclusion these days. I'd be wary of sharing such retrograde sentiments, you might hurt an LLM.
Eternal September: AI edition
the composition of HN has changed to be a lot more leftist and less capitalist, and I don't think that'll change anytime soon
I joined HN 13 years ago (2 years after you), and back then I saw it as a bunch of libertarians and venture capitalists and some open source (and/or functional programming) enthusiast with a few interesting and nerdy projects. I was mostly here for the news about new and useful technology.
I think the visual weight of the first group has increased over time as their projects of making a bunch of money while offering nothing of value has been validated more and more by our capitalist economy.
I joined in 2008, that was even after lurking for a while, and it’s almost unrecognizable now in comparison has been for many years. Was mostly entrepreneurship, tech was present but was a means to an end. It wasn’t tech for the sake of tech, which is what it feels like in the recent past. The discussion on entrepreneurship topics seems to have an employee mindset more so than an owner mindset. I find it similar to how renters vilify landlords but being a landlord is not massively glamorous and can be quite risky, renters are generally out of touch with the costs involved and the profit of a landlord is all I’m saying. There’s definitely some shitty landlords tarnishing the reputation of them all. This is what has happened in tech too, the startups we loved turned evil. My gut reaction of any new tech product is no longer curiosity, it’s mistrust.
Anyhow - I find tech stuff interesting to a degree, but fundamentally I’m an entrepreneur that sees it as a tool. A means to an end. And I would love to find a place that still has that vibe. But anywhere entrepreneur related is always a cesspool of grift so it’s hard to find.
Reading about tech has become gradually less and less fun for me over the past 16 years.
Does anyone remember the awe that was felt the first time we encountered an iPhone. Or an iPad? I remember those days I would read tech news and sites like Ars Technica and comments were sometimes snarky and indignant but generally people were enthusiastic about reading tech because it offered glimpses into more technically advanced futures.
I wasn't browsing HN back then but I imaging the same thing was true of HN in the late 2000's and early 2010's.
Now tech sites like Ars Technica consistently have comment sections filled with immense negativity cynicism indigation and just plain old boiling rage. I avoid those comment sections now because reading such things negatively affects my mood and certainly isn't fun.
And over the past few years HN has gradually become more negative and nasty.
All this sucks. This isn't why I became interested in tech. This isn't why I used to spend time reading about technology and science.
All this sucks. This isn't why I became interested in tech. This isn't why I used to spend time reading about technology and science.
You're 16 years older now. You will have changed. HN has too, but looking back at how great it all was without also realising that your point of view is different means you're missing a big part of why it feels worse now. I've been here a long time too so I'm not going to claim I don't see the same thing, but I imagine someone who signed up 3 months ago won't have the same opinion as us old timers.
> but I imagine someone who signed up 3 months ago won't have the same opinion as us old timers.
that's for sure but if I got to know HN 3 months ago I would not be an active user. The content and discussions here are still interesting but the demographics that enjoy it changed over time and I (and OP) might not be the kind of people that would get interested anymore.
There is no "hacker" in HN anymore, unless we count the hustlers trying to cheat their way to success. Talking about that, there are so much psyops going on in so many threads that we, the old hackers, are the ones getting hacked.
I still maintain the notion that tech was most exciting/peaked around 2010. Macs were awesome (and the Intel transition was complete at full strength), things were fast, OSes weren't bloated, and we didn't have flavor-of-the-month fads like cloud, crypto, NFTs, or AI.
I can't recall who said it, but "The biggest problem with golden ages is that you never realize you're in one until it's over".
There were several golden ages of tech for most people who went through them: - the pre-internet run-up of personal computing (~1975-1995) - the early internet (~ 1990-1998) - the big post-dot com crash tech boom (~ 2003-2020, but more of a golden age for employees)
However, almost all golden ages (including non-tech ones) end for the same reason (the ranges above I'm excluding the last phase). Early adopters (tech enthusiasts), early implementations that focus on them, then mass market appeal that "dumbs it down", then the financialization as accountants and grifters start showing up. Same thing happened to Hollywood, the music industry, etc.
We're now squarely in the last phase of the post-dotcom boom.
(I'll also note that the timeframes are arguable - I'm not going to get into quibbles over minutiae)
> In the first half of the month, roughly 60% of the daily HN lineup was AI-related or AI-generated, tapering off to ~50% as we approached the end of the month. This is up from 40% in February.
This aligns with my much less scientific research. Every now and again, when I remember to do it, I will skim the top 10 stories and count how many are AI-related. I find it is very consistently in the 4-6 bracket. Probably a majority of the time, 5 out of 10 articles are AI-related, and very rarely does it drop below 4 out of 10. It also rarely goes over 6 out of 10, but I can remember it happening a couple of times.
In fact, the proportion of AI representation in the top 10 is so consistent (in my, again, unscientific experience) that I wonder if it is being moderated one way or the other.
Personally I find it boring that one topic gets so much discussion but who am I to argue. I do my bit by making sure to upvote non-AI stories that I find interesting.
I swear that the amount of astroturfing in the comment field by AI bots being positive towards AI is at an all time high as well.
Links?
I'm not sure I'd be able to (confidently) tell the difference between human and SOTA bot comments.
Is there something trick to it?
FWIW I’ve seen people complaining of the exact opposite. Difficult to say without measuring
For me, I'm surprised to see people proposing conformist views and trying to push whatever the establishment is pushing.
I dunno, I was a contrarian with blockchain and now am conformist with AI. Being contrarian for its own sake is pretty stupid.
My reaction is: that's an appropriate amount. AI is probably the biggest thing to happen (in tech) in the last two decades, so I think it's fair that it's taking up a lot of the discourse.
It seems a bit self-reinforcing. AI makes almost zero (positive) impact on my day to day life and isn't actually something I interact with directly and the same holds true for most people I talk to.
There's a few of my friends in tech for whom AI has obviously massively changed how they work, but again not in a clear positive direction.
To me there seems to be a push to heavily prompte LLMs, even thought the benefits aren't all that clear yet. Some people are seeing massive improvements in how they work and it's understandable that they, like with blockchains or Kubernetes previously want to share their optimism. I just question if maybe these people are being to louder and have to much influence. There's a large silent majority for whom all the AI stuff is almost completely pointless.
It does need to take up more space on HN, compared to your normal media, because the technology needs to find it's way into applications and appliances. The hype will die down, especially once we start to see the actual costs, e.g. ChatGPT doesn't actually provide enough value for the average user to warrant a subscription, hence the ads. For now, it seems that AI is heavily pushed by industry and a group of fans, the amount of news and articles just doesn't line up with the actual daily use.
I don't think that AI has to influence every single person's daily life to make a huge impact. I think for probably 90% of people it's pretty useless out side of being a better search engine. But that doesn't mean it won't have a huge impact on science and technology at large. There are a lot of snake oil salesmen trying to stick it into everyone's face, but I don't think that should be conflated with the real progress that's being made.
There's a part of me that agrees.
There's also a part of me that misses the earlier days of Hacker News when the subject matter was much more eclectic and seemingly every day I'd have a chance to learn about something completely different.
And that's maybe what I miss. Nowadays Hacker News feels increasingly like another social media platform: mostly a lot of opinions, war stories, and self promotion. That feeling of serendipity that so characterized earlier ages of the Web is fading here, too.
Yes, it's appropriate given the metric you have chosen ("big"ness), though maybe the word should then be "expected", since "appropriate" implies some kind of broader human-oriented concept of rightfulness/goodness.
Upvoted: I was going to write this exact reply. Everyone is a bit tired of hearing about AI, but it's advancing fast and it's the most important thing right now. As Demis says, if we get to ASI, we can solve all other issues with it.
> it's advancing fast
Actually, it (LLM models) has been advancing slower for a while. This is pretty much in the mainstream. And the current approach is facing all sorts of obstacles that are not exclusively technological. The compute needs are no longer sustainable. Financially, big labs are drowning in debt and backlash against data centres has grown so much that it has become an electoral topic in at least one major country.
why exactly do we want ASI, and further, if we DID, why on Earth would we want it controlled by the likes of Sam Altman, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, and Larry Ellison?
FUCK THAT
Support DeepSeek and Ziphu than, I am not advocating the merits but it is the reality. ASI will be pursued regardless of wants.
Bigger than the Metaverse or monkey NFTs?
Problem is other cool hacky stuff gets drawned out. Nobody votes on those because I imagine it's no longer attractive to the type of visitor that HN attracts now. I reckon there's many more non-tech, "make me a millionaire" gold rush crowd here, as cynical as it sounds. I base that on pure logic, since it's kind of inevitable with AI having delivered a massive democratization of tech knowledge, but also on the amount of snarkier, shorter, less technical, less logical, one short sentence type of comments.
I know it's been said countless of times before, but I think this community has truly changed within last year.
> AI is probably the biggest thing to happen (in tech) in the last two decades, so I think it's fair that it's taking up a lot of the discourse.
Almost. the iphone was launched 19 years ago. It was (and still is) much more relevant than the current LLM-based AI.
I would say, AI is probably the biggest thing to happen in tech, full stop.
LLMs went from a toy to highly capable (along many dimensions) in just a few years.
Which makes it very likely that in a few years more, we will be seeing crazy capabilities that leave us humans increasingly behind.
You really have to expand the list to ridiculous levels before you get to something as big. We've already left humans behind in many ways (but in others we've failed to build LLMs that know how to find the gaps in implementation that humans are leaving out)
Cynics really say stuff like "but it's been 3 years and all they can claim is that it's changed text to speech, speech to text, photos to text, text to photos, programming, cybersecurity, research, mathematics, war...
"They lie about it being dangerous!" and simulataneously "They hacked a system with zero day exploits! Everyone involved should goto jail!"
Tech leaders are awful, but it is just that we've built a society that enables the most awful among us to benefit the most. It has never been the case that tech leaders are particularly amazing, they are just amazing at exploitation.
> "They lie about it being dangerous!" and simulataneously "They hacked a system with zero day exploits! Everyone involved should goto jail!"
FWIW:
The simultaneous "it's stupidly weak" and "it's dangerously strong" is a well known propaganda technique.
I think microprocessors were the biggest thing, until the internet, then the web, open source, system on a chip, virtualization, cloud, ..
When each of those things came in, there was definitely some stumbling but I remember things being less ambiguous about being good than LLMs.
> I think microprocessors were the biggest thing, until the internet, then the web, open source, system on a chip, virtualization, cloud, ..
and none of them changed society more than the smartphone (starting with the iphone).
I would say, AI is probably the biggest thing to happen in tech, full stop.
I would say, the transistor was probably the biggest thing to happen in tech, full stop.
I'm sick of it, but you are 100% right. I'm sure a good number of active readers here want even more AI-related articles.
Same. I hate that the TS is right.
Feels more like another blockchain hype cycle to me.
Especially the part where we're always on the cusp of the entire world changing while the biggest change is just that huge sums of money changed hands, inducing psychosis in a large group of investors.
I know what you're saying, there is a lot of speculation going on in AI right now. The difference is there is hard evidence of AI capabilities accelerating now: we've gone from toy chatbots to sort-of useful coding helpers to agents solving novel math problems in 3.5 years. We could plateau any day and a lot of investors would be stuck holding the bag, or we could continue on that trajectory and they'll make crazy profits. With crypto, the bet was always "how much money will people keep sticking in this market?" which seems a lot more flawed to me.
The irony with blockchain is that it also had a bunch of real life use cases but the sheer extremity of the hype cycle managed to actually prevent them from being effectively brought to life.
There was a lot of genuinely useful tech that blockchain could have facilitated and all we were left with in the end was a mountain of scams and bitcoin.
I'm seeing something similar with AI where the genuinely useful stuff is getting washed out by the hype simply because it's a gradual improvement and not "disruptive". Meanwhile the stuff sold as disruptive like vibe coding is mostly bullshit.
Blockchain wasn't this overwhelming though. You could pretty much ignore it if you wanted.
We're not on the cusp, we're in the process.
World-changing doesn't happen overnight. The internet didn't, either.
This is like 1991 internet.
it's more like the flight of the Concorde
It's not just HN, have you seen mainstream news recently? It's just a hot topic and I think it's normal for people to talk about those a lot.
If quantum computing ever goes mainstream, I'm sure you'll see a lot of articles about that as well.
The programming Reddit forbade AI posts. Unfortunately the result is NOT better level posts, but a wasteland instead.
Forbidding AI posts is a net positive, not negative.
Reddit had become a wasteland before the LLM era began.
HN really needs an AI filter. Most posts are AI company promotion now.
All HN users can be part of the solution. Help mods by emailing them at hn@ycombinator.com. I recently pointed out a suspicious pattern, and the mods were able to use that to track and ban a collection of accounts.
Some users on HN are "allowed" to do breathless AI self-promotion on HN and other readers support them by posting it anyway. Other HNers on the other hand, got banned immediately for doing the same thing.
That is why many users here realized that there are protected accounts that can do that and everyone else cannot. Even in rare circumstances, the moderators sometimes unbeknownst to them, may also be indirectly allowing it.
It is far more complicated and one of the reasons why users here are fed up of the constant AI deluge on this orange site and nothing is changing other than there is more of it.
All the god damn pelican spam
I’ve had some luck messaging the moderators and calling them out for it. They may or may not do it on purpose, I have no idea. But it has worked to get certain golden children at least flagged when they’re doing things that would get others straight up banned.
If you're interested in a solution, I maintain a reader that performs client-side filtering from a given view. Here's a view with an AI filter I try to keep up to date: https://logicnow.io/hn/index.html?view=https://raw.githubuse...
I wrote a browser extension to auto-hide AI-related articles. It makes HN much more readable: https://github.com/ColdPie1/enough-ai-on-hn/
I've been noticing in recent months that even when the article is in no way related to AI, there's often comments trying to steer it into AI, often in a way that makes no sense at all. It has a way of becoming its own parody.
there was one glorious day years ago when every story on the hn front page was about erlang. that was fun. (anyone else remember that?)
It was on 2009-03-11. You can still see how the front page looked that day:
https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2009-03-11
Reading these comments it seems that meta-discussion of AI is the most hot button topic of all in HN.
HN is a reflection of the industry and you'd have to be living under and rock (or in denial) to ignore LLMs. People who complain about it give off a real "kids these days"-vibe that has been present on HN for the entire time I've been here. There are _always_ people complaining about the current infatuation (and I'm sure I've been one of them).
I find the posts/comments bemoaning the pervasiveness of LLMs on HN to be more tiring than even some of the more annoying LLM posts.
If HN didn't feature LLM-related content there would be people, rightful so, complaining that we are ignoring a huge thing happening in the industry.
I'm deeply disappointed that many of the stories on HN are directly or indirectly about A.I. and LLMs. To me this is a complete turn-off. OTOH this seems to be the case everywhere in the IT landscape these days.
Many people interested in technical stories have mostly stopped reading computing related news. I know people that used to host talks about .NET software development quit because they hated all .NET developments pushed by Microsoft were related to Azure or A.I. These are developers that want to build software, not scream to/plead with an LLM to do it for them. It simply takes the fun out of being a software developer. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that in a couple of years many people will leave the sector because it's no fun anymore. Management is forcing you to use your (supposed) future replacement.
I think grief is appropriate for the part of the software engineering craft that has been lost, because it was genuinely fun and rewarding at times, and I don't think it'll ever come back. Sure, some of us will hack on things manually for fun here and there, but even that will likely become ever more niche, like doing your laundry with a washboard. And professionally, no one is going to be writing code without LLMs before long. That world is gone, and it's OK to mourn it.
I think its very easy to note and come to the conclusion that this is the most disruptive tech of our industry. HN is full of people from all walks of life, but people from all walks of life are using AI (or LLMs). The way I hear people describe using AI is the way people used to talk about Google.
As much as I am one of the "In Betweeners" of AI (not hyper loving, nor hyper hating it) I do wish HN wasn't flooded with it, but its just the nature of LLMs currently, they are the new thing that has taken over our society in a drastic way, those who pretend otherwise will be surprised to know that the rest of society has moved forward with it.
I like this but next do how much of HN is astroturfing for Chinese AI.
Why would that be caused by astroturfing? The HN audience is the exact people I would expect to be looking at alternative to mainstream AI providers
Upvoted obviously just to counterbalance how often I got downvoted for stating how popular posts from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc are just ads.
The author is most subtle or diplomatic than me and thus call them "AI vendor press releases" or "AI vendor marketing" but we know.
The thing is, the AI-related topics are pretty easy to skip. Sure, you may have to go to the second page to see the same number of non-AI stories that you used to see on the front page alone, but you can just not click on them. (Same with politics, BTW.)
But AI-generated content is harder, both stories and comments. HN does moderately (heh) well at filtering them out, but I would like better.
Someone made an HN without AI filter and it front paged here a bit ago.
https://elijahpotter.dev/hnsansai
(That's the first one I found, maybe there were others)
So...are you complainers all using it? If not, why not?
Spoiler -- because when someone says "I'm tired of reading about {X}", they're really saying "I want everyone else to stop talking about {X}". This has happened repeatedly over HN's life, and it just betrays how emotional people get when they feel that they can't control the narrative.
If HN doesn't work for you, stop coming to it?
Not everyone here is AI. I can't tell the difference so what does it matter? If I learn something or get inspired by a person or a bot, great.
AI tools are incredibly powerful, new and rapidly evolving, you shouldn't be surprised that everyone on HN is all over it.
> I can't tell the difference so what does it matter?
Eternal September. Just like the usenet groups
Eternal September. Just like the usenet groups
And CB radio before that.
> Not everyone here is AI.
That’s not the argument.
> I can't tell the difference so what does it matter?
It matters because you’re not the only human on HN and others have difference preferences. “I don’t care about this particular issue” is not the same thing as “this particular issue isn’t important”.
> you shouldn't be surprised that everyone on HN is all over it.
Not the argument either. No one is “surprised” this happens, people (obviously not all, but a significant number) are annoyed by it.
It’s sad; on the one hand, it’s true, and on the other, this story is also about AI. (translated from german by AI)
the most annoying thing, for me, brought on by llms is that almost every HN submission now has the exact same conversation on it.
without fail, if the submission has text, someone says it is ai generated. other people concur. someone says it probably isn't. someone else says that it shouldn't matter if the content is good. small argument about the accuracy of ai detection tools.
rinse and repeat on every damn submission. often times this is the dominant comment chain regardless of what the actual submission topic is. it bugs me more than the fact that half of the front page is ai promotion.
Compare to the 2010s when 90% of the front page was about NoSQL
Would be interested to see this compared to past trends, crypto and NFTs for example
"At the same time, it has a fair number of toxic commenters, making it a dependable source of insults hurled in my general direction; if you want a taste, {another article by same author} has been called “watered-down” and “slop”."
We have gotten to the point where it is virtually guaranteed that some commenter to almost any given article will have an oversensitive AI detector and accuse the author of it being AI. I swear there's people whose AI detectors are just
Occasionally such people also complain about how much of the world is AI now... well... yeah, that's what happens when that's your detector. It's not quite that bad, as bad as it is.I don't know what to do about it. Discussion about AI provenance of a given work is often a valid topic. When YouTube shovels an AI channel at me and it briefly penetrates my defenses, it's heartening to see the commentors trying to warn people about it, shortly before I block the channel.
(It's annoying that so many legit channels, which I know are legit because they predate AI and the same person is on camera as before, have switched to heavily-AI thumbnails. That's the hole that the other channels sometimes get me with, because just having an AI thumbnail doesn't prove it's not a legit channel now.)
On the other hand, the chorus of very annoyed people who are very annoyed because they see AI everywhere who see AI everywhere because they literally see AI everywhere are becoming a bit of a nuisance themselves.
The truth is, writing is hard and time consuming, and most people are uncomfortable with the process. AI is a very easy shortcut to lucid, logical, authoritative text. Like sugary drinks and snacks, people can't resist. Add in the pressure to keep up with everyone else and the choice is easy -- spend a few days drafting and editing, or a few minutes chatting with an LLM before hitting post?
AI has rapidly destroyed, completely destroyed, the remaining authenticity on the internet. The majority of articles are AI generated. And yeah at this point its futile to keep pointing it out. Human prose has been eliminated.
> We have gotten to the point where it is virtually guaranteed that some commenter to almost any given article will have an oversensitive AI detector and accuse the author of it being AI.
Well... when the utter majority of articles written about topics surrounding AI are written with AI and a ton of newcomers to the reverse-engineering and even hardware hacking communities now have AI do their work for them, even the last remnants of areas that used to be "for humans only" are now contaminated with AI.
Of course people end up being very sensitive. I come to HN to read words written by humans, not fluff hallucinated by an LLM.
>I come to HN to read words written by humans, not fluff hallucinated by an LLM.
yeah, but now a good chunk of the human-written words in the comments section are "ai slop", or some portmanteau of slop and something else. not particularly enlightening reading.
Too much. And most of the posts are slop or low quality syncophantic drivel.
All of it, it's time to move away, go to https://outspeaker.com/, it doesn't censor nor remove anti-ai content
Surely you're aware of the various theories that AI is going to up-end the entire world.
How can you be surprised it's up-ending a geek forum first?
Nobody is surprised
The author of the article seems to be surprised.
As well as many people in these comments.
Nothing in the article is expressing surprise
"That said, the recent shift feels more profound: almost every day, it feels that the lineup is dominated by stories focused on AI, written by AI, or commented on by AI."
I interpreted that as surprise. I apologize if you disagree.
Sometimes there's an obvious AI comment, how is it auto-hidden/downvoted?
There is some LLM detection for comments that auto-flags them.
It has some unfortunate side effects, though. Namely on a thread where people are discussing a text-heavy post that is LLM-authored, quoting a large enough block of that content appears to trigger it sometimes. Makes sense that it does, but..
Contrary to popular belief, it's quite easy to spot something written with AI. You just need the skill/gift. I usually spot them rather quickly and will flag on sight. Other users will do the same.
holy shit I've been here since 2013, I need to get a job
And what will it be in another 10 years?
Is Pangram's detection capability considered to be on the higher side? This post seems to be written under the assumption that Pangram's detection is highly effective. Is it actually considered to be on the higher side in English-speaking circles?
Pangram links several third party evaluations [1] that all seem to agree with 90+% detection, and very close to 0% false positives. Obviously those could be cherry picked, but I’ve yet to see arguments to the contrary that actually include any supporting data. (E.g here’s a prompt that will get Claude to spit out text that pangram doesn’t detect or here’s an article authored in 2018 that pangram says is AI.) Detection is an arms race, so this could change (though I’d expect in the direction of false negatives), but right now it seems like defense is winning.
[1] https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals
> Obviously those could be cherry picked…
The "could" isn't required here, since Pangram calls many of the evals "collaborations", and some received direct support. Results that don't favor Pangram as being among the least-worst of a questionable product category* surely wouldn't be featured.
* https://mitsloanedtech.mit.edu/ai/teach/ai-detectors-dont-wo...
My confidence in Pangram is pretty low -- seems like a lot of false positives *and* negatives
Yes, from my experience it is highly effective
Would be cool to see data for an older timespan, starting pre-LLM
As someone who has been posting here since 2010, I don't blame AI. The exodus started long ago and continues to evolve over time. It is unfortunate what this place has become due to poor quality of moderation. Lobste.rs just hits better, and Reddit isn't half-bad as purported.
Did not read the article, but I would say about 40%. Btw, you can toggle [showdead] in profile settings, then you'll see messages caught by moderators, which are sophisticated bots (writing style at ChatGPT3 level) + absolutely valid points that lash out on ruling class, SV mentality, US and Israel.
a lot is also not caught.. and over time itll be less and less. hn has been great for a very long time, but this time has come to an end
> you'll see messages caught by moderators
Much of these are caught by users downvoting and/or flagging. I think the lack of a public moderation log makes people think the mods are constantly running around every story/comment to steer the site when really it's the users doing most of the grunt work while the moderators only step in occasionally for the more serious items.
Did read the article, you'd be correct... for a few months ago. Now it's apparently up to 60%.
100% of the comments that I disagree with are AI-generated bots and paid shills. All of mine are human-generated.
Far less than the constant whining about AI.