> What’s with the all the hate for AI assisted writing on HackerNews?

I don't think it's specifically for "AI assisted writing", any lazy writing gets hate on HN, the bar for quality just sits higher for better or worse.

> It saves TIME and helps in improving coherence of one’s articles.

I agree that it saves time for the author, but for the reader it has the opposite effect, and if you're unable to write coherent articles without the use of LLMs, maybe solve that first instead of patching over the problem.

Because AI writing is lazy and moreover, I don’t want to know the AIs opinion on something, I can get that myself, if I want to read someone’s article I want to hear that persons words and that persons opinions.

If someone has no opinions or unique insight then why would I listen to them or read their content.

Again, if I want the AIs view on something I can open up Claude and ask them myself, why bother reading generated articles that took 10 seconds for someone else to prompt?

Update - Just got rid of the spiced up intro

It destroys the previously implicit contract that the writer actually spent a decent amount of thought and time into the writing, and that the ideas expressed are theirs and original.

I don’t mind good usage of LLM assisted writing, but if the author can’t even be bothered identifying the most obvious AI tells, I use it as a proxy that the author probably but very little effort into the article.

It’s also often a horribly verbose style, where the same ideas could be presented with 20% of the prose.

It’s also ruining the entire experience on web communities (although here on HN the moderation team seems to get a hold of keeping them at bay at this point, much appreciated).

All in all, it’s objectively a net negative for the readers, and serves only the author.

I prefer original, less coherent articles that are genuine and where I know the ideas expressed are really the author’s and not the LLM’s inference.

Last but not least, I don’t think the grandparent you’re replying to was particularly hateful in the grand scheme of things.

Why would you prefer less coherent article? If article has a utility, I will read it, no matter what the source is.

For the same reason, people prefer authenticity over mass-produced, generic stuff.

But authentic writing takes a lot of effort, and nobody wants to do that anymore in 2026, so the status quo is more mass-produced, generic content, which is frustrating and (to me) a regression.

The problem with AI written articles is still feeling uncertain whether there's actually any utility after reading 2000 words as you realize that it's been 90% filler so far but think maybe it will lead somewhere soon? But it doesn't and you wasted ten minutes reading glorified blog spam that was micro targeted at whatever niche you were researching.

After a while you pick up on the warning signs and just bail early without any guilt about false positives. It's really the only sustainable strategy in a world where it takes 5 seconds to absorb 5 minutes of your attention span.

LLM prose is unfocused and extremely verbose. It wastes the readers time and is insulting. If you don't care enough about something to write about it, I certainly can't be expected to care enough to read it.

LLMs don't want anything. Thus, they have no taste. It's not merely a style question, it wastes readers time trying to find the point the author was trying to make; a fruitless search, as the LLM wasn't trying to make a point, it was completing one probable sentence after another.

When used well, it's not noticeable and nobody complains. The problem is only when it's used badly.