4 ms·

A word of caution with this one. > EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liabil

A word of caution with this one. > EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above. > NOTE: This content is not written by or endorsed by "WCIA/WCIX", its advertisers, or Nexstar Media Inc. This isn't news, it's a paid press release.

cogman10 2y ago
I'd also point out this https://www.einpresswire.com/ai/press-release-generator https://www.einpresswire.com/ai/press-release-generator This could literally be AI fantasy. Shame on whoever created this.
loeg 2y ago
I hit "flag" and I'd suggest everyone else do so as well.
- beedeebeedee 2y ago
  I strongly disagree. It should be examined (their analysis, the artifacts they discovered, and whether or not they are similar to the artifacts that could be created from software similar to the repo that was shared below). It's worth asking this community to examine and discuss it. This is clearly related to the professional interests of this community, and this community is uniquely suited to bring insight to it.
  - loeg 2y ago
    It's an extreme and divisive claim on a pay-for-publish local TV channel website. The details are unpersuasive coincidence and no reliable 3rd party has substantiated the allegations. The originator of the claims is an organization that didn't exist three months ago. These are all reasons to be pretty skeptical before amplifying.
    - beedeebeedee 2y ago
      All of your criticisms are unrelated to understanding the analysis (or software). Let's read it, work through it and discuss it, rather than dismissing it for all the wrong reasons. Flagging this submission is anti-curious. Instead of not engaging if you're not interested in doing the work, you're trying to suppress other people from doing the work. It may turn out that none of it is convincing, but we don't know that right now and what has already been presented is surprising and worth investigating.
      - throwworhtthrow 2y ago
        I looked at the source blog post and decided it was pretty shoddy. I kind of agree that a reasonable person would doubt the veracity of this post, not just for the reasons loeg mentioned, but because the presented "evidence" is a single cherry-pick from data with lots of inherent variance. I think it's valid criticism to say that you should have taken a closer look before submitting, and concluded that it was too junky for HN. In which case the flagging is appropriate.
        beedeebeedee 2y ago
        Can you share your analysis of the data? Other commenters have included details. I think we all would be interested in more than vague value judgments that you took a look, didn't like it and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it
        perching_aix 2y ago
        > and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it nice mind reading skills over there
        thejazzman 2y ago
        there are multiple comments in here calling for people to flag this thread. AND IT WORKED. this was ripped off the front page yesterday. the idea we can't discuss it is the most scandalous of all, IMO, especially given we are just bunch of nerds discussing shit.
- throwworhtthrow 2y ago
  I took a look at their data, then came back to HN to post a gentle debunk-of-sorts. But I couldn't submit my comment because the post had been flagged. I think it would have been better if you'd left your follow-up comment [1] when flagging. (FWIW I agree with your reasoning.) Flagging without comment was counterproductive, as it spawned a second submission from folks suspicious of why the first one was flagged. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42995880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42995880
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
beedeebeedee 2y ago
Here's the website for the analysis: https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv That is better to scrutinize than the press release.
- andiareso 2y ago
  They also release a YouTube video and it looks heavily AI generated. The conversation sounds like Google’s podcast AI. The statistics, graphs, and conclusions don’t make any sense.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cogman10 2y ago

I'd also point out this https://www.einpresswire.com/ai/press-release-generator https://www.einpresswire.com/ai/press-release-generator This could literally be AI fantasy. Shame on whoever created this.

loeg 2y ago

I hit "flag" and I'd suggest everyone else do so as well.

beedeebeedee 2y ago
I strongly disagree. It should be examined (their analysis, the artifacts they discovered, and whether or not they are similar to the artifacts that could be created from software similar to the repo that was shared below). It's worth asking this community to examine and discuss it. This is clearly related to the professional interests of this community, and this community is uniquely suited to bring insight to it.
- loeg 2y ago
  It's an extreme and divisive claim on a pay-for-publish local TV channel website. The details are unpersuasive coincidence and no reliable 3rd party has substantiated the allegations. The originator of the claims is an organization that didn't exist three months ago. These are all reasons to be pretty skeptical before amplifying.
  - beedeebeedee 2y ago
    All of your criticisms are unrelated to understanding the analysis (or software). Let's read it, work through it and discuss it, rather than dismissing it for all the wrong reasons. Flagging this submission is anti-curious. Instead of not engaging if you're not interested in doing the work, you're trying to suppress other people from doing the work. It may turn out that none of it is convincing, but we don't know that right now and what has already been presented is surprising and worth investigating.
    - throwworhtthrow 2y ago
      I looked at the source blog post and decided it was pretty shoddy. I kind of agree that a reasonable person would doubt the veracity of this post, not just for the reasons loeg mentioned, but because the presented "evidence" is a single cherry-pick from data with lots of inherent variance. I think it's valid criticism to say that you should have taken a closer look before submitting, and concluded that it was too junky for HN. In which case the flagging is appropriate.
      - beedeebeedee 2y ago
        Can you share your analysis of the data? Other commenters have included details. I think we all would be interested in more than vague value judgments that you took a look, didn't like it and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it
        perching_aix 2y ago
        > and therefore tried to flag to repress discussion of it nice mind reading skills over there
        thejazzman 2y ago
        there are multiple comments in here calling for people to flag this thread. AND IT WORKED. this was ripped off the front page yesterday. the idea we can't discuss it is the most scandalous of all, IMO, especially given we are just bunch of nerds discussing shit.
throwworhtthrow 2y ago
I took a look at their data, then came back to HN to post a gentle debunk-of-sorts. But I couldn't submit my comment because the post had been flagged. I think it would have been better if you'd left your follow-up comment [1] when flagging. (FWIW I agree with your reasoning.) Flagging without comment was counterproductive, as it spawned a second submission from folks suspicious of why the first one was flagged. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42995880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42995880
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

beedeebeedee 2y ago

Here's the website for the analysis: https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv That is better to scrutinize than the press release.

andiareso 2y ago
They also release a YouTube video and it looks heavily AI generated. The conversation sounds like Google’s podcast AI. The statistics, graphs, and conclusions don’t make any sense.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]