I suppose a lack of testing and an assumption that the action will fail so rarely that it’s not worth accounting for? But yes, such patterns make it hard to trust and efficiently use an interface.
Even just in my family, the attitude has shifted significantly over the last year. Most of my family members are now critical of it and its effects.
Add to this that if ~6B people are using the internet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage), and ChatGPT only has almost a billion users (and is the largest player in the space), then I’d argue that LLM-users are in fact the minority.
I think this is the optimal outcome of the “Slop Police.” Normalization of these acknowledgements. Transparency is good, like a journalist declaring whether they have vested interests.
Might be the only thing that matters to you. And, perhaps, the only thing that matters in a functional sense. But, whether it’s human-coded/written or not matters deeply to some.
Is HN particularly drawn to this over other platforms? I gotta say I don’t quite recognize this. In general, I think there’s a good dose of respect for science around these parts, but maybe I’m blind to it.