4 ms·

AI slop

• IshKebab 2mo ago
  Yeah I think they at least put some light effort into making it readable though. Obviously slop but not quite as bad as most slop articles.
  • inferencecoder 2mo ago
    There is barely any effort, a simple GPT5.6 sol pro query rips the post apart.
    • logicallee 2mo ago
      if you did that in the web interface, could you share the chat? I'd be interested to read it.
      • inferencecoder 2mo ago
        https://chatgpt.com/share/6a6f09ff-2830-83ea-9578-de3016cfae1f https://chatgpt.com/share/6a6f09ff-2830-83ea-9578-de3016cfae...
        • logicallee 2mo ago
          thanks for sharing. When I read your original comment, I was thinking you had just asked it to evaluate the article. (Like just "evaluate this article" or something.) I don't think anything anyone (or any AI) has ever written or published (including Sol itself) wouldn't be torn apart by the prompt you gave though.
          • inferencecoder 2mo ago
            I think it's fair to expect an extensive review of an article before publishing. Not everything has a set of serious flaws.
            • IshKebab 2mo ago
              It doesn't look like it has found a set of serious flaws to me. Just nitpicking.
              • inferencecoder 2mo ago
                To begin with, as I pointed out separately, the price comparison that makes the headline is absurd. No one is easily getting the MI355X's at $2.5/hr. And then the eval is unreplicable and poorly defined.
            • logicallee 2mo ago
              >Not everything has a set of serious flaws. I'm saying everything looks like it does, with the prompt you gave Sol. Go ahead and point the same prompt to anything you don't think has serious flaws and you'll see it would tear it apart.
• stevenarellno 2mo ago
  this got 82% human written on pangram :(. why the ai slop allegations? how can we make this better in the future? (i work @ wafer & witnessed ian writing this)