> I don't think the root post here should be flagged really.
If you're referring to my post ...then of course I agree with you!
I should clarify that I am in no way whatsoever opposed to AI usage. I use it all day, every day like most of us here and, if we are doing labels now, then I guess I would consider myself generally AI-positive.
What I don't like is when people use AI to produce low-effort content, and then package it in such a way that it masquerades as high-effort content. Of course what is low-effort or what is high-effort are highly subjective. But publishing an article that has your name at the top, it's written in the 1st person, and yet it's very obviously 100% copy/pasted AI output -- this falls on the wrong side of ethical for me.
I suppose OP could put "AI-generated" or some such disclaimer on the article. But I would rather people just revise the output, actually engage with what they're creating before they dump it on the rest of us.
> find the atmosphere around here pretty off-putting lately.
Hehe. I chuckle because I've been reading comments like this one for more than 10 years now. You might be right. But if HackerNews is dying then it sure is taking its time.
> Does that have something to do with OP's post, though?
Yes, the post reads to me as AI-generated, and then the author lightly revised the intro. They aren't evil for doing this. I just personally prefer reading things written by a human.
> I didn't get the same "AI wrote this",
The tells aren't always the same. For me LLMs have a certain indefatigable "bounciness" in their output that is impossible to miss. Everything has to be punchy. Everything shows the same level of (strangely elevated) excitement. At some point a human will do human things: put a little more detail here, vary their tone there, maybe lose the thread a bit and talk about something that's unrelated to the main flow. LLMs don't do any of those things–the writing is one speed from beginning to end. It's like riding a conveyor belt
> but I get a lot of people saying "AI wrote this" to stuff I definitely wrote by hand
I agree that there is a flip-side here where many people are eager to accuse AI usage for sometimes bizarre and facile reasons. And this is unfortunate, too. But it should illustrate the general frustration that many people are feeling about AI and its effects on social norms.
The English language has no words (yet) to capture that special combination of nausea and embarrassment one feels when they commit in good faith to reading a long piece of prose... only to slowly realize the whole thing is AI generated. But I'm feeling it more and more often these days.
What alternative would you suggest? "Sent a message in our enterprise chat application about the version control system that our engineering team sometimes uses (no, not that one, the other one) but they need it in the project management app that our Design team uses (good luck requesting access from IT, we have more than a dozen project management tools in our catalog)"
Interesting. Although it seems they are focusing primarily on detecting AI generated video and imagery. But most of the annoying slop videos I come across seem like they are using real footage/video clips. It's just edited together by AI and there's an AI narrator reading an AI script. I wonder if they'll do anything to guard against this type of junk
The server often has long wait times due to the number of players trying to join, so you can pay for "priority access" and jump right to the front of the queue.
You're missing the point here. The "old" Apple would never have tolerated a janky feature that inverts responsibility onto the user and behaves poorly out-of-the-box. Back then it was either lightning fast, jank-free, and intuitive -- or else it doesn't ship.
But this eroded over time. Nowadays both Mac and iOS are bloated pieces of crap that reek of design by committee. A lot of people blame Alan Dye (and they are probably right to do so) but there are other factors too. With Steve and Jony gone, they need someone who cares to step in and assert control once more
I don't disagree. But defaults are important, and you are in a tiny minority with wanting to disable iCloud. 90% of people using Apple phones want or expect things to be magically backed up for them
> "When you optimise a step that is not the bottleneck, you don't get a faster system. You get a more broken one."
> Think about it mechanically. If station A produces widgets faster but station B [...]
[Reject Optional], [Essential Cookies Only] ... I am one of the people who clicks such options. But to some degree they are "privacy theater". Any website that presents you with such a choice is almost certainly loaded to the gills with tracking/analytics and various 3rd-party services that will track you with browser fingerprinting regardless of any buttons you click on the cookie banner. Nevertheless I still reject them, mostly out of spite.
> “This is what Chinese modern transnational repression looks like,” Ben Nimmo, principal investigator at OpenAI, told reporters ahead of the report’s release. “It’s not just digital. It’s not just about trolling. It’s industrialized. [...]
There's something poetic about OpenAI being asked to comment on mis-use of their slop generator, and their answer is composed entirely of AI slop.
Pretty cool that they are advertising OpenClaw compatibility. I've tried a few locally-hosted models with OpenClaw and did not get good results – (that tool is a context-monster... the models would get completely overwhelmed them with erroneous / old instructions.)
Granted these 80B models are probably optimized for H100/H200 which I do not have. Here's to hoping that OpenClaw compat. survives quantization
Neat! I wonder what's so strange about it besides the heat
> because there is essentially no scientific explanation for its existence.
Wait whut