> Who cares if the site is LLM generated?

Lots of people. Even on HN, which is wildly unrepresentative of the US as a whole, comments that "this site was AI-generated" are commonly upvoted to the top because people do care.

That includes me. If it's AI-generated, I don't care about it - if it wasn't worth their time to write, it's not worth my time to read. I can generate it myself.

> The content is what’s interesting

If it's generated, the odds of it being wrong are far higher, because people who publish generated content are far less likely to care about quality or correctness.

> Who cares if the site is LLM generated?

Me. Because if there's no human checking the content I don't actually have a reliable signal that what I'm reading is true.

I'm not a subject matter expert here but I know that list includes Disney+ at $18.99 and Hulu at $18.99... but Disney and Hulu bundled together is $19.99. From the exact source the site cites:

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/09/23/disney-plus-price-incre...

A human doing the research would likely have picked up on that. An LLM that just reads everything literally does not.

> Using AI to spit out cookie cutter layouts is fine, offloading your thinking onto AI is not something I support.

This is the core of the problem, I have absolutely no confidence that any of the specific number figures or parameters listed anywhere in the website are factual. For all I know they're AI hallucinations. Or wildly out of date based on the final training date of some model. It absolutely does not look like data that somebody collected "by hand" and verified as true.

If I can generate the site myself with an LLM, it's a lot less compelling. Maybe just share the prompt in that case.

Another issue is that "This site was made with AI" just doesn't really add much to the conversation. There will very likely come a time soon when 95-99% of the sites that make the HN front page will be AI-assisted or AI-generated. What are these people going to do? Comment "This site was made with AI" on every single article? Why not just add a disclaimer to the top of HN that says "Most of these articles are made with AI" so the commenters don't have to log in just to tell us each and every time?

I used to get downvoted when I complained that a site uses 6 point font, or when it renders all of its text in a small 5cm vertical strip down the middle of the page, or when it didn't work without JavaScript... and all my other personal bug-a-boos. I stopped because I realized those comments add nothing to the conversation.

"This is AI" similarly adds nothing.

You don’t get it do you? The content is wrong and this aesthetic means: you cannot trust this. As someone who makes a living making website I wouldn’t have expected the tide to turn so fast. Clients now hire me to absolutely NOT have this aesthetic

As long as these comments come up, people haven't given up against this flood. It's a good sign. Also consider cause and effect. These comments only exist because of AI content.

> LLM generated

This is a proxy for "the author didn't give a shit"..Not always, but often.

we're looking for author voices, not claude proxies.

> Who cares if the site is LLM generated?

Good people do.

> I’m not meaning to be abrasive here, but these comments are also getting old and tired.

I always check the comment section first because I do not wish to engage with slop content.

> The content is what’s interesting, and it is.

Can you trust AI content at face value? No you can't. AI has been shown time and time again to just hallucinate shit out of thin air.

And that is why I want to avoid interacting with any kind of GenAI/LLM/... garbage. I always find the need to second-check whatever I'm reading and it is highly annoying.