4 ms·

Coldbrew's law states that if an article is written in praise of AI and abstrusely written, then it's probably AI slop, written by someone who holds their own i

Coldbrew's law states that if an article is written in praise of AI and abstrusely written, then it's probably AI slop, written by someone who holds their own ideas in high enough regard to publish but holds their audience in low enough regard that they won't bother to edit it. Edit: there it is. `vibe-coded and deployed with Claude Code`

ethn 1y ago
The article is not written by claude code...only the website. And the article is not praising AI.
- krainboltgreene 1y ago
  It directly and implicitly describes a fantasy as if it’s reality multiple times.
  - ethn 1y ago
    If so, that's a mistake of mine, I wrote the whole text in one go.
- esperent 1y ago
  If that is true, you should state it at the top. Website vibe code, words written by a human. I have doubt that it's true though, it really sounds like AI writing.
  - ethn 1y ago
    Good idea. Again, I'm sure you can ask a GPT or use one of those services designed to detect that usage.
stego-tech 1y ago
Y'know, you (the general 'you', not you specifically, coldbrewed) feel bad about your writing or blog because of the odd spelling error, or grammar issue, or repeated language, or maybe your points aren't clear enough, or maybe you're talking in the wrong tone... ...and then you read something like this, and realize, "Yeah, no, I have room for improvement, sure, but thank f*** I'm not like this." The entire post reads like someone high on their own supply. Just when I think they're getting to a point, they pull out every fifty-dollar word and concept they possibly can (explaining none of it, nor linking to any Wikipedia articles to help readers understand) to ostensibly sound smarter-than-you and therefore entitled to authority. I'm sure there's a law/rule/principle for this concept somewhere, but if you can't explain your point simply, you don't understand the topic you're trying to communicate. This one-off, vibe-coded (RETCH), slop-slinger is a prime example of such. Pay no attention to the charlatan cosplaying as tenured academia.
- ethn 1y ago
  Again this piece is not written with GPT, feel free to ask any GPT. Ironically, maybe I should have to increase the appeal of my ideas. I chose my words carefully to communicate my ideas precisely.
  - stego-tech 1y ago
    GPTs' historically aren't great at identifying their own work; if they could, AI-based cheating wouldn't be the problem it is at present. Assuming you're the OP, and this is your blog, let me give you some feedback: * Choosing your words carefully and communicating your ideas clearly are separate skills. You may have chosen the most precise language, but your ability to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as HN is lacking (judging by the comments) * If you're going to invoke half a dozen rules, principles, laws, and/or proofs in the span of two pages, then you'd better link the associated Wikipedia articles for folks to follow along, at least until you've established a readership baseline. People read blogs for learning or entertainment, and if you're trying to teach a perspective, then you need to include copious links to this material; otherwise, your readership is going to turn into an echo chamber of similar academics (or people cosplaying as such, which is dangerous) * Your narrative structure leaves a lot to be desired. Are you sharing an opinion piece about a potential AI-energized future? Or are you mocking AI detractors? Or are you digging up old memes? Maybe you're getting into the philosophy angle of capitalism and entrepreneurship? Or perhaps making a judgement about the perceived lack of "startup spirit" of modern workers? I honestly can't tell, because at times it feels like this single piece is touching upon all of them, but not going into anything more than surface-depth about any of them * As far as reads go, it's a strugglebus. Your blog gives no insight into the author as a person, but the piece reads as if we should already know you and respect your authority on the topic because of credentials. Its sentences meander far too long before stopping, as if you're trying to consolidate complex thoughts that demand a paragraph of context into a single, lengthy, concise sentence - and leaving readers to figure it out on their own time, like a University Professor with tenure. * Personal nitpick here, but your application of the Pareto Principle to human labor within corporations betrays your inexperience (at best) or your absence of empathy (at worst). More than likely, it displays a profound level of distance from work "in the trenches", and the associated lack of understanding of why corporations are formed, grow, function, struggle, wither, collapse, and die. Talk to more workers, and not just ones at your present company/title/rank/experience level/demographic brackets. Humans are messy creatures, not machines, and assuming they will behave as machines inside other machine-like structures is ignoring the inherent chaos of existence.

ethn 1y ago

The article is not written by claude code...only the website. And the article is not praising AI.

krainboltgreene 1y ago
It directly and implicitly describes a fantasy as if it’s reality multiple times.
- ethn 1y ago
  If so, that's a mistake of mine, I wrote the whole text in one go.
esperent 1y ago
If that is true, you should state it at the top. Website vibe code, words written by a human. I have doubt that it's true though, it really sounds like AI writing.
- ethn 1y ago
  Good idea. Again, I'm sure you can ask a GPT or use one of those services designed to detect that usage.

stego-tech 1y ago

Y'know, you (the general 'you', not you specifically, coldbrewed) feel bad about your writing or blog because of the odd spelling error, or grammar issue, or repeated language, or maybe your points aren't clear enough, or maybe you're talking in the wrong tone... ...and then you read something like this, and realize, "Yeah, no, I have room for improvement, sure, but thank f*** I'm not like this." The entire post reads like someone high on their own supply. Just when I think they're getting to a point, they pull out every fifty-dollar word and concept they possibly can (explaining none of it, nor linking to any Wikipedia articles to help readers understand) to ostensibly sound smarter-than-you and therefore entitled to authority. I'm sure there's a law/rule/principle for this concept somewhere, but if you can't explain your point simply, you don't understand the topic you're trying to communicate. This one-off, vibe-coded (RETCH), slop-slinger is a prime example of such. Pay no attention to the charlatan cosplaying as tenured academia.

ethn 1y ago
Again this piece is not written with GPT, feel free to ask any GPT. Ironically, maybe I should have to increase the appeal of my ideas. I chose my words carefully to communicate my ideas precisely.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  GPTs' historically aren't great at identifying their own work; if they could, AI-based cheating wouldn't be the problem it is at present. Assuming you're the OP, and this is your blog, let me give you some feedback: * Choosing your words carefully and communicating your ideas clearly are separate skills. You may have chosen the most precise language, but your ability to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as HN is lacking (judging by the comments) * If you're going to invoke half a dozen rules, principles, laws, and/or proofs in the span of two pages, then you'd better link the associated Wikipedia articles for folks to follow along, at least until you've established a readership baseline. People read blogs for learning or entertainment, and if you're trying to teach a perspective, then you need to include copious links to this material; otherwise, your readership is going to turn into an echo chamber of similar academics (or people cosplaying as such, which is dangerous) * Your narrative structure leaves a lot to be desired. Are you sharing an opinion piece about a potential AI-energized future? Or are you mocking AI detractors? Or are you digging up old memes? Maybe you're getting into the philosophy angle of capitalism and entrepreneurship? Or perhaps making a judgement about the perceived lack of "startup spirit" of modern workers? I honestly can't tell, because at times it feels like this single piece is touching upon all of them, but not going into anything more than surface-depth about any of them * As far as reads go, it's a strugglebus. Your blog gives no insight into the author as a person, but the piece reads as if we should already know you and respect your authority on the topic because of credentials. Its sentences meander far too long before stopping, as if you're trying to consolidate complex thoughts that demand a paragraph of context into a single, lengthy, concise sentence - and leaving readers to figure it out on their own time, like a University Professor with tenure. * Personal nitpick here, but your application of the Pareto Principle to human labor within corporations betrays your inexperience (at best) or your absence of empathy (at worst). More than likely, it displays a profound level of distance from work "in the trenches", and the associated lack of understanding of why corporations are formed, grow, function, struggle, wither, collapse, and die. Talk to more workers, and not just ones at your present company/title/rank/experience level/demographic brackets. Humans are messy creatures, not machines, and assuming they will behave as machines inside other machine-like structures is ignoring the inherent chaos of existence.