Hacker News Reader

Comment by BugsJustFindMe | Hacker News Reader

This looks written by someone paid by the word, probably using ChatGPT. It has all the standard signs. Redundancy. Redundancy. Single sentence paragraphs. Pointless differentiation between things that are not meaningfully different. Redundancy.

> "For example, a college professor might... Similarly, a manager who..."

And a turtle could... And a basketball player will... And a movie star may...

> "Focus on your goals instead of on your tasks. For example, if you need to work on a task that you find boring, then instead of focusing on the task, try thinking about your goals"

That is not an example! That is the same sentence again!

I hate this future built on charlatanism and wasting other peoples' time.

View on HN

All of the bulleted lists are a strong indicator too. ChatGPT loves bulleted lists.

Also all of the leading sentence adverbs:

> Furthermore, ... (used six times)

> Finally, ... (used three times)

> Accordingly, ... (used three times)

> Overall, ... (used two times)

> Similarly, ... (used six times)

> In addition, ... (used five times)

> For example, ... (used 34 times)

Those leading adverbs are part and parcel and a very common structure lmao

I know, I write that way too. But combined with what BugsJustFindMe pointed out, it smells like it was written by AI. It's all so repetitive and robotic.

> It's all so repetitive and robotic.

Lots of writing is, because generations of people have been trained that "grammatical but formulaic and bland" is the way to write. AI writing is reinforced by the training process, the human trainers were probably trained by they English teachers in a certain way.

That's the consequence of designing a curriculum for ~68-70% of the population.

I write like this because starting sentences is hard.

This also happens to be shaky advice. Focusing on the big goal, when it will take thousands of steps, can be demoralizing, emphasizing the bigness of it. Focusing on just getting the task at hand done today and leavbing to faith that the big goal will work out if we just crank out one task per day is often way less procrastination inducing.

But LLMs are good at generating text, not understanding the implications of what they said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com