I'm seeing a worrying trend on HN. Nearly for all articles, there is one unquantified, unproven comment at the top saying it's 100% AI — no proof, just baseless emotion of what fits the commenter's writing style. This is the new witch hunt, or virtue trolling.
Look at the later comments, they have substance oriented discussions.
HN Mods - can you please consider a policy against such comments, it's overflowing the site and is diluting discourse and value. If people don't like an article, they can simply ignore it. These articles are reaching the top because enough people consider it of value.
But when an article comes to the top, and the topmost comment and discussion thread is an unqualified witch hunt, it's getting sick.
I don't know if it's an intentional joke or something, but your comment smell incredibly like it's written as AI.
Per the writing, reading AI writing is like having something taste "chemical". Not very specific, but still a very recognizable and bad taste that makes it hard to enjoy and marks the thing as low quality.
The "About" page basically admits the entire site is written by AI.
https://reinvently.co.uk/about/
Hmmm, as the author: the feedback is interesting indeed and something to take onboard...
Ultimately I hope the result provided value by stimulating debate. To me it feels like lots of people rejecting the idea that a Chinese open weights model could be THAT good. Yeap, so the writeup is formatted with AI, but the benchmark and the results has taken meeeeeee weeks of effort to bring it together. The point is I am not going head-to-head against AA with my spare time.
And the concept is based on a Grand Tour - of if you are Brit Top Gear TV show where we put 1 star in a reasonably priced car (my humble, little test harness)
Hence 'same drive, same track. The LLM is the Star'. The irony is entirely lost on some of these folk. I am not, in my sparetime trying to be Artificial Analysis. But actually the point is....do you really trust Artificial Analysis: or do you trust a benchmark that is free and open for you all to pull down and run (and adapt to your needs, in your circumstances and your problems).
If there is anyone who wants to look at things with open eyes instead of the group think, it's all there for deep review
It's not nearly all articles. It's predominantly for the AI-written articles. And no, it's not unsubstantiated allegations or "virtue trolling". The tells are painfully obvious, and can be verified with high quality AI-detectors like Pangram.
And this really has to be policed. Once some tipping point is reached and too much of the HN homepage is AI slop, the site is dead.