4 ms·
The prose is, of course, LLM-generated. https://www.pangram.com/history/29a71663-e6b2-4db6-87bd-b9437d6f1164 https://www.pangram.com/history/29a71663-e6b2-4db6-
by andymatuschak 3mo ago
The prose is, of course, LLM-generated. https://www.pangram.com/history/29a71663-e6b2-4db6-87bd-b9437d6f1164 https://www.pangram.com/history/29a71663-e6b2-4db6-87bd-b943...
I'd be curious to learn more about how/why executives come to sign their names to this kind of writing. Maybe it feels like a natural iteration of the pre-existing experience of signing one's name to an assistant's manuscript, or a press release from staff in Comms? I don't know execs who do this kind of thing, so would be grateful for any observations others might be able to share (anonymously or otherwise).
Aside: I think it would be very good for the culture if HN automatically ran Pangram on any text-centric articles. Even perhaps just those which hit the front page? I have my own browser plugin, of course, but judging by comments here, at least some seem not to notice?
- 4k0hz 3mo agoI agree that it would help the site a lot but Pangram is notoriously inaccurate.
- andymatuschak 3mo ago?? Depending on the study, false positive rates range from “undetectable” to 2:10000. Or are you worried about false negatives?
- akrolsmir 3mo agoAgreed re: automatically running Pangram, maybe once the articles hit some vote threshold (or just, frontpage) in case cost is a concern. I think aggregators running AI checks automatically seems quite good, rather than individual readers all doing it on their own sporadically. We recently implemented auto Pangram checks on Manifund, and I think LessWrong has done this for a while now.
- andai 3mo agoIt's not just a good idea — it's necessary.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- dragontamer 3mo agoNo. Keep Panagram a bit of a secret weapon. The minute Panagram becomes a metric the minute it becomes useless and we have to use something else.
- Centigonal 2mo ago[dead]