"This is written by an LLM" comments should be flagged as off-topic
3 points by drmorr
3 points by drmorr
There've been endless discussions about whether we should ban LLM-generated text, or change the ai/vibecoding tags, or etc. The general consensus seems to be (???) flag low-effort/uninformative stories as spam and move on.
My proposal here is that comments on these stories that just say "this is LLM slop" or something equivalent should be flagged as off-topic. Clearly everyone has different thresholds for what triggers their "slop-o-meter" but at least 80% of the reason I read lobsters is for the quality of the commentary here, and it's frustrating to have to wade through arguments about whether the story under discussion is LLM slop or not. It's also frustrating to submit a story that I thought was interesting and (for whatever reasons) didn't trip my slop-o-meter, and then have the only comment be "would have been a nice article if it weren't written by an LLM". It's even more frustrating, and frankly kindof demoralizing, to have an article that I wrote (without an LLM) get submitted and then get accused of it being LLM-generated [1].
I get that LLMs are polarizing and frustrating to everyone in the community; at this point I don't think anybody is going to change their minds about anything here, so this proposal is "In addition to 'flag low-effort articles as spam and move on', we should also 'flag this meta commentary as off-topic and move on'".
[1] To be clear that hasn't happened here for articles I've written, but I have gotten that reaction on other platforms, and I've witnessed that happen to other authors on Lobsters.
This would go away if we can flag items as slop/spam, yes.
Yeah these comments are clearly working around a shortcoming of the flag system; spam is specifically defined as having a commercial element, making it inappropriate (if interpreted as defined) for many slop posts.
Banning the comments without fixing flags is pointless. Address the root cause rather than the symptoms.
The mods have indicated that spam is the right flag for this kind of content, at least as far I can tell, and I definitely have noticed that other people are using "spam" as a flag for articles that are non-commercial in nature.
Disagree; they have not indicated this sufficiently clearly as the about page clearly contradicts this.
I'm confused? You already can flag items as spam, and I do it regularly.
Currently the rules for "spam" are meant for mostly marketing stuff. https://lobste.rs/about#flags
and "Spam" for promoting commercial services.
There have been multiple threads with hundreds of replies each on this subject; the moderators here have indicated (1, 2) that they are not adding a new flag reason and that "spam" is the right flag to use for this kind of content. (at least that is my reading/interpretation of their responses).
You may dislike it, but I appreciate it. I do not want to waste my time reading generated content. And, frankly, I do not wish to engage with "assisted" writing, because when people defer their writing to these tools, they lose themselves -- and I read for the perspective, and the style of the writers, not for the content alone. This is also important as a discussion point: why is it irrelevant as to how the article is written? It gives greater insight into the point made by the author, and how the author has engaged with that work.
Having an early signal which helps me determine how to engage with the content appropriately is valuable to me. If you don't appreciate it it, the [-] button is there for you, just as the hide button is there for me.
and what about text where someone asked the LLM to fix the grammar/spelling? and what about a well thought argument that someone asked the LLM to translate from spanish? and what about the well thought argument that someone maybe dyslexic asked the LLM to write up from a bullet points list?
please don't simplify something nuanced. you risk to exclude interresting contributions. and no, i don't want either to see here slop devoid of any informational value or worse, factually wrong hallucinations.
We've already rehashed the pros and cons of LLM-generated text to death. All I'm asking is to stop arguing about it in the comments, either flag as spam and move on, or don't.
I find comments alerting me of the fact that submissions are LLM-generated to be helpful, and use them as guidance to flag the submission as spam, and hide it.
(I don't take such comments as gospel, and do my own verification!)
There are probably bloggers whose native language isn't English who use AI to improve the language of their blog posts. People more familiar with English may recognize such text as AI slop, even if it is just a kind of assisted writing.
Since English isn't my native language either, I don't notice when AI has been used in texts like these. For me, what matters most is how the core message comes across.
Sure, this meta thread isn't about why people do or don't use LLMs. All I want is to stop seeing the argument about "this was generated by a robot!" "no it wasn't" "yes it obviously was" in every single comment thread here (hyperbole applied)
I understand that. I just wanted to give an input why some linked blog postings may look like AI slop, but are not. This is just something to consider before marking such posting as spam.
Wouldn't the same consideration need to be taken before leaving a comment that says "this is LLM slop"?