Why is it stupid to flag genuinely LLM-written content? It might've been thought out by a human, but the final version is clearly LLM-written or extremely heavily LLM-edited.
It's mostly boring. About 50% of comments of HN are about this at the moment, drowning out actual discussion.
If someone writes an interesting article using LLM, I don't mind.
HN guidelines ask you to not do this.
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
While few read them, it might be helpful if @dang threw in the ", or LLM generated content".