Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | khalic's commentslogin

The fact that it requires a user action to initiate is better than the previous solution, but that's a pretty low bar to have

edit: removed, didn’t properly read the context

> Do you seriously consider invasion of other countries a good thing

No, of course not. I really do not understand how you interpreted what I said as saying taht.

Can people please read what I said in the context of the comment i replied to!


Sorry, corrected

2030 lol

Oh my favorite typo, you can never go wrong with a little rouge

I'm going to spend so much time on this website, very good work

I've been using homebrew for so long, I can't tell you how much it has helped me to spend more hours developing and less managing packages and updates, etc. Thank you so much, congratulations on the update!

I strongly recommend the authors rewrite the readme by hand. It’s kind of a snif test for how much care someone put into this project.

I have the same complaint about oh-my-pi's readme. The tone is obnoxious. It's somehow jaded and matter-of-fact at the same time. Like it was written by that one guy at work who never misses a chance to brag about how clever he is.

There is a band called The Protomen who do rock operas about the Mega Man storyline. They have a very earnest, gritty sound. Every time I read a project README written by AI, I hear the voice over from the first track of the first album, Act 1: Hope Rides Alone (https://youtu.be/VZ8jyGVioxg?is=gsXlgwa4Ubx6LmKE).

"Twelve years Light worked and on a cold night in the year 200X, Protoman was born. A perfect man, an unbeatable machine, hell-bent on destroying every evil standing between man and freedom, built for one purpose, to destroy Wily's army of evil robots. Ready. Willing. Prepared to fight."

For the Protomen it makes sense. But for a project README it's so absurdly melodramatic.


One "AI-ism" I noticed is that LLMs often just put sentences behind one another without using any connecting adverbs - and just leave it to the reader's imagination how the sentences are related to each other.

E.g. in the readme: "LiteLLM routes LLM calls across providers and translates between message formats. That core is buried under 100k+ LOC of proxy servers, caching layers [etc...]".

Those two sentences have opposite sentiment on LiteLLM, so a human author would at least put a "but" between them. In contrast, the LLM just strings them together.

This reads "blunt" and "matter-of-fact" at first glance, but I wonder if it's really just an artifact of allocating less space for text generation and more for code in LLMs.


omp is slopware through and through. And it shows, slow as hell to use

Agree. The LLM'isms are offputting.

This readme is better than most readmes. However they came to making it, it's clearly working

Throwing my support for this. Do not use LLMs to write things humans should write.

[flagged]


1. Not a tangent, it’s related to the very first content visible on that link. 2. Not a dismissal, an advise from an expert 3. Not complaining, as stated, giving an advise about the optics of using clear LLM prose on the first paragraph

Yes, complaining about the readme's tone is tangential. Yes it's dismissive.

No, you're not offering expertise—you're offering ubiquitous banality.


Comment got flagged and deleted, guess you were not just wrong, but extra wrong ;-)

Tangential annoyance?

Radial annoyance declarations only!

Really? I mean, yeah, it's probably written by an LLM, but it's hardly the worst that I've seen. Looks way more straight forward than the modern README featuring a ton of badges, emojis, confusing out-of-context screenshots, "trust me bro" installation instructions, vague elevator pitches, "used by netflix, nasa, disney, good morning america, alex jones, the church of scientology", and other verbiage to create the illusion that the author won't immediately get bored and abandon their glorified dissertation piece. They all scream "give me your github stars" whereas this one doesn't. But I still get what you mean when it comes to the particular 'isms.

300 messages and counting, and you're the first one I see making the comment. Shame on everybody here for not doing their basic due diligence of reading the fkn article before posting or reacting

> only one

He is not. (Edited out a piece here which made sense only with the former version of the parent.)

49656423, 49656530, 49656641, 49656679, 49656711, 49656738, 49656911, 49657090, 49657390 (the one that got noted)...

The piece remains relevant for many ongoing reasons.


If this is posted because it's "still relevant", the headline probably shouldn't say "no longer".

yeah gonna correct to first one

Ah, the ai panic has reached scientists, queue in the 1000s of articles about how it was about people all along and doom is coming to our civilisation because of it.

I very much hope that apple is using lidar data to determine if it's a flat surface being screened

And then? What if the flat surface is a wall showing cracks and it's the photo that should have been signed?

Maybe it should include depth info in the image instead.


lidar = depth sensor

Sure (I already worked with lidars before they were in phones ;-)), I had just understood that the proposal was to just not sign the images coming from a flat surface like a screen, which of course can have unintended effects.

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

Search: