3 ms·

I am fairly confident that this article is largely AI-generated. More generally, the whole site appears to be heavy on AI slop, e.g.: https://thenewstack.io/how

I am fairly confident that this article is largely AI-generated. More generally, the whole site appears to be heavy on AI slop, e.g.: https://thenewstack.io/how-ai-is-pushing-kubernetes-storage-beyond-its-limits/ https://thenewstack.io/how-ai-is-pushing-kubernetes-storage-... And maybe it's fine to have AI-generated articles that summarize Twitter threads for HN, but this is not a good summarization of the discussion that unfolded in the wake of this complaint. For one, it doesn't mention a reply from Google security, which you would think should be pretty relevant here.

BoredPositron 11mo ago
Like the bug report in question... poetic.
- mrob 11mo ago
  The bug report in question is obviously written by a human: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/440183164?pli=1 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/440183164?pli=1 It's of excellent quality. They've made things about as easy for the FFmpeg devs as possible without actually fixing the bug, which might entail legal complications they want to avoid. AI was only used to find the bug.
  - BoredPositron 11mo ago
    "obviously". You have 0 evidence for your comment. Big sleep is credited as reporter.
    - mrob 11mo ago
      Thinking about it, "obviously written by a human" is not actually true. It's more accurate to say "no obvious signs of being written by AI".