>in a world where the difference between human trained to talk like an AI and AI masquerading as human

I was once accused of using AI for writing in the voice of a depressed character because the character had a certain emotional detachment that to the person lodging the accusation indicated AI.

In short it is not just specific phrasing or words but also aesthetic effects that mean one is AI nowadays.

You've accurately described the current state of Lobsters.

You posted your comment while I was editing mine so this conversation is in an indeterminate state! (Not a criticism - I take forever to edit these things sometimes.)

For example, I think you said "the politics of articles" before I added the thing about a "class distinction". Intriguing overlap!

I don't quite follow what you mean about grim future but if you wouldn't mind reading the edited version of my post, I can respond to anything that isn't addressed there.

Honest question, why would it be a grim future for people to be allergic to what, in 99% of the cases, is effortless slop?

Personally that is the future I hope to see. Hence my continuous protestations at the lazy excuses for articles that get posted these days, and the lazier excuses given by their authors for avoiding using their brain.

Hacker News is already in the business of policing articles though. This is a curated list of articles that people share, and a lot of unrelated articles are automatically deleted or just downvoted out of existence. This isnt Reddit.

It’s okay to have an opinionated website. Not every corner of the internet needs to be a bastion of free speech

“AI generated” is already a slur.

Why would humans ever be trained to talk like an AI? If they are working in some capacity where there is strong incentive to write llm-slop adjacent content, might as well use the llm slop generator.

'humans trained to talk like an AI' is just LinkedIn and I would hope that the last thing anyone wants is for HN to become the utter void that is LinkedIn posts.