3 ms·

Why don't you focus on the actual content instead of attacking its authorship? Your comment is clearly written by an AI.

n4r9 1y ago
I did say it provides a decent summary. I write my own posts except where I explicitly copypaste a response from an LLM. In fact I just asked Claude Code and ChatGPT about the Thresh X2 algorithm and they couldn't even descibe it to me.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  There you go, attacking AI again, first for it producing content, and now for it not producing content. It is a palace of absurdity you have built. Maybe just try keeping AI out of your discussion.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Identifying AI is useful to others. Especially in academic topics (where it is less reliable) or where text lacks a disclaimer. I do so without meaning to criticise AI itself. I'm sorry if this is a sensitive topic for you, but I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying.
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      I have seen lots of biased hateful users such as yourself that falsely attempt to discredit valid posts by claiming they're written by AI. It's extremely dumb and evil, is not backed any evidence, and is irrelevant to the post. Even if the post to actually be written by AI, that is no reason to use that assertion to try to discredit it. It ruins an otherwise excellent comment.
      - n4r9 1y ago
        Why "evil"? I'm pretty confident they're heavily (if not fully) relying on LLM-generated text. Maybe they're drafting it themselves first and getting an LLM to refine. I found some recent articles by the same author which gave me the same reaction: https://medium.com/@kanishks772/computer-scientists-just-broke-50-years-of-sorting-algorithms-1e8c06ab98ac https://medium.com/@kanishks772/computer-scientists-just-bro... and: https://medium.com/@kanishks772/why-your-next-gps-might-use-this-2025-algorithmic-breakthrough-07c9b80ffd34 https://medium.com/@kanishks772/why-your-next-gps-might-use-... They seem to have a process for grabbing a research paper, getting an LLM to summarise it, adding AI-generated images and pseudo code, and publishing it. There are lots of parallels in describing fundamental breakthroughs overturning decades of conventional wisdom. And it has the same clipped bullet lists with sound bite phrases, and slideshow style headings. It's extremely reminiscent of what happens when I ask Claude to give me a summary of something. As a general note, I do think it best to take any article written by AI with a pinch of salt. Much like you should closely review any code they write. It's not at the level of a human expert, but it's trained to convince you that it is one.
        OutOfHere 1y ago
        It is evil because it is intended to suppress discourse for irrelevant reasons. It is also deceptive because you don't exactly know the level of effort that went into it. It should make no difference it's written by AI or not. One should evaluate and criticize content without regard to who or what has written it. Conversely, just because a human writes something should not and does not make it superior. People like you shamelessly attempt to suppress a broad spectrum of writing whenever they find something to disagree with, by blaming it on AI. That's what's evil about it.
        n4r9 1y ago
        I'm not trying to suppress anything, but I want people to be aware. Conversely, I would gladly point out that an article on mathematics written by Terence Tao is likely to be high quality and insightful. Such guides are helpful in a world where not everyone has the time or energy to fully get to grips with the minutiae.
  - rmwaite 1y ago
    Personally, I think you need to chill. He wasn’t “attacking” it, he was just commenting and includes his interpretation about it being from AI. Why don’t YOU just focus on the primary point of his comments instead of latching onto the AI part—or is it okay when you do it?
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      Users such as him routinely use the AI excuse to try to discredit valid posts without evidence. It is an altogether evil act, attempting to suppress valid discourse. This merits recognizance. I was only mocking this action. Even if something were to truly be written by AI, that is not a valid reason to try to discredit it. It's not okay for anyone to do it. Why ruin an otherwise excellent comment for no reason?
twojacobtwo 1y ago
You need to take a break from the internet for a while. You're getting far too worked up over a passing comment. It clearly wasn't dismissive of the content and, as pointed out, OP immediately followed the comment by talking about the content (I.e. saying it's a decent summary). Some of us think that anything created by an AI should be labeled as such. Is that an inherently evil belief? It is a little dumbfounding to compare the seeming emotionality/outrage of your posts with that which spurred it.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  Your gaslighting comment is clearly written by AI even if it has some points that might appear to be valid at first glance. Given its authorship, it doesn't merit a response from a human. You need to take a break from the internet instead of continuing to spread your AI generated spam!
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]

n4r9 1y ago

I did say it provides a decent summary. I write my own posts except where I explicitly copypaste a response from an LLM. In fact I just asked Claude Code and ChatGPT about the Thresh X2 algorithm and they couldn't even descibe it to me.

OutOfHere 1y ago
There you go, attacking AI again, first for it producing content, and now for it not producing content. It is a palace of absurdity you have built. Maybe just try keeping AI out of your discussion.
- n4r9 1y ago
  Identifying AI is useful to others. Especially in academic topics (where it is less reliable) or where text lacks a disclaimer. I do so without meaning to criticise AI itself. I'm sorry if this is a sensitive topic for you, but I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying.
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    I have seen lots of biased hateful users such as yourself that falsely attempt to discredit valid posts by claiming they're written by AI. It's extremely dumb and evil, is not backed any evidence, and is irrelevant to the post. Even if the post to actually be written by AI, that is no reason to use that assertion to try to discredit it. It ruins an otherwise excellent comment.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Why "evil"? I'm pretty confident they're heavily (if not fully) relying on LLM-generated text. Maybe they're drafting it themselves first and getting an LLM to refine. I found some recent articles by the same author which gave me the same reaction: https://medium.com/@kanishks772/computer-scientists-just-broke-50-years-of-sorting-algorithms-1e8c06ab98ac https://medium.com/@kanishks772/computer-scientists-just-bro... and: https://medium.com/@kanishks772/why-your-next-gps-might-use-this-2025-algorithmic-breakthrough-07c9b80ffd34 https://medium.com/@kanishks772/why-your-next-gps-might-use-... They seem to have a process for grabbing a research paper, getting an LLM to summarise it, adding AI-generated images and pseudo code, and publishing it. There are lots of parallels in describing fundamental breakthroughs overturning decades of conventional wisdom. And it has the same clipped bullet lists with sound bite phrases, and slideshow style headings. It's extremely reminiscent of what happens when I ask Claude to give me a summary of something. As a general note, I do think it best to take any article written by AI with a pinch of salt. Much like you should closely review any code they write. It's not at the level of a human expert, but it's trained to convince you that it is one.
      - OutOfHere 1y ago
        It is evil because it is intended to suppress discourse for irrelevant reasons. It is also deceptive because you don't exactly know the level of effort that went into it. It should make no difference it's written by AI or not. One should evaluate and criticize content without regard to who or what has written it. Conversely, just because a human writes something should not and does not make it superior. People like you shamelessly attempt to suppress a broad spectrum of writing whenever they find something to disagree with, by blaming it on AI. That's what's evil about it.
        n4r9 1y ago
        I'm not trying to suppress anything, but I want people to be aware. Conversely, I would gladly point out that an article on mathematics written by Terence Tao is likely to be high quality and insightful. Such guides are helpful in a world where not everyone has the time or energy to fully get to grips with the minutiae.
- rmwaite 1y ago
  Personally, I think you need to chill. He wasn’t “attacking” it, he was just commenting and includes his interpretation about it being from AI. Why don’t YOU just focus on the primary point of his comments instead of latching onto the AI part—or is it okay when you do it?
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    Users such as him routinely use the AI excuse to try to discredit valid posts without evidence. It is an altogether evil act, attempting to suppress valid discourse. This merits recognizance. I was only mocking this action. Even if something were to truly be written by AI, that is not a valid reason to try to discredit it. It's not okay for anyone to do it. Why ruin an otherwise excellent comment for no reason?

twojacobtwo 1y ago

You need to take a break from the internet for a while. You're getting far too worked up over a passing comment. It clearly wasn't dismissive of the content and, as pointed out, OP immediately followed the comment by talking about the content (I.e. saying it's a decent summary). Some of us think that anything created by an AI should be labeled as such. Is that an inherently evil belief? It is a little dumbfounding to compare the seeming emotionality/outrage of your posts with that which spurred it.

OutOfHere 1y ago
Your gaslighting comment is clearly written by AI even if it has some points that might appear to be valid at first glance. Given its authorship, it doesn't merit a response from a human. You need to take a break from the internet instead of continuing to spread your AI generated spam!
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]