It’s funny how HN has a mix of people who think AGI is just around the corner, people trying to build/sell stuff that uses LLMs, and others who can’t stand LLM-generated content. Makes me wonder how much overlap there is between these groups.

Those are not incompatible positions at all. You can think great AI is around the corner and still dislike today's not-great AI writing.

I don't have anything against LLMs, I use them daily myself, but publishing content that's largely AI-generated without a disclaimer just feels dishonest to me. Oh, and also when people don't spend at least some effort to make the style more natural, not those bullet point lists in the article that e.g. Claude loves so much.

What makes you think the article is AI-written?

I've just spent too much time with different LLMs, and for example Claude really loves such bullet point lists. The article is full of them.

The whole structure with numbered sections really gives it away, humans don't write blog posts like that.

I remember reading the post and feeling it was inorganic.

After your comment I re-read everything and you're correct: this is a very common template for Claude type answers.

LLM-generated comments on HN are against the guidelines. Would the same apply to blog post submissions?

Well if it applied, someone should train a model that tells LLM and human content apart for automated rejection.

Easy peasy.