3 ms·

How is this adding to the discussion? The post in itself is quite informative.

duhhhhh1212 13d ago
Do you constantly want to be reading ai-generated content on this site? If so, why not just stay on chatgpt.com and ask it to generate what hackernews.com would look like today? It's adding to the discussion because I feel like the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.
- nzealand 13d ago
  > the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it. I seriously doubt that. First, the author documented a substantial effort (testing, emails, references to documentation.) Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not. > Broken sentences that a model wouldn't produce. "The value is while you are on ChatGPT and tied to your ChatGPT account" is missing a word. "Loading that code, sends __obi to OpenAI" has a comma splitting subject from verb. "By the virtue of loading the tag the identifier is disclosed" is non-idiomatic. LLMs are fluent to a fault; these are the fingerprints of a fast human writer, possibly a non-native English speaker. Third, I read it. Whilst it is not well written, it is succinct. It is novel. It has a few detailed references. It lacks many of the hallmarks of AI. It makes a number of novel yet falsifiable claims. I challenge you to come up with a blog post with these qualities that can be created in under 15 minutes via AI. While I commend you on actually using an AI tool to validate your assumption, rather than simply hurling AI slop accusations based purely on vibes, I do think you and your AI tool are likely incorrect.
  - eventualcomp 13d ago
    > created in under 15 minutes This is an artificial constraint that does not serve the reader. Where did the 15 minute constraint come from?
  - brainlessfilth 13d ago
    > Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not. every day I'm more and more reminded that the level of intelligence of the average human even on hn is so low that it makes sense why LLMs took over so hard. Asking an LLM like an oracle as if it could naturally distinguish between LLM writing and human writing.. it's a statistical likelihood next token predictor. LLMs can't even play chess without constantly making illegal moves. They are not intelligent.. and unfortunately, I have bad news for you: neither are you.
Sharlin 13d ago
Having an LLM generate major parts of text that you (implicitly or explicitly) claim as yours is dishonest and plagiarism and should be brought to readers' attention, and it baffles me that many people just don't seem to mind or see anything problematic about it.

Do you constantly want to be reading ai-generated content on this site? If so, why not just stay on chatgpt.com and ask it to generate what hackernews.com would look like today? It's adding to the discussion because I feel like the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.

nzealand 13d ago
> the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it. I seriously doubt that. First, the author documented a substantial effort (testing, emails, references to documentation.) Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not. > Broken sentences that a model wouldn't produce. "The value is while you are on ChatGPT and tied to your ChatGPT account" is missing a word. "Loading that code, sends __obi to OpenAI" has a comma splitting subject from verb. "By the virtue of loading the tag the identifier is disclosed" is non-idiomatic. LLMs are fluent to a fault; these are the fingerprints of a fast human writer, possibly a non-native English speaker. Third, I read it. Whilst it is not well written, it is succinct. It is novel. It has a few detailed references. It lacks many of the hallmarks of AI. It makes a number of novel yet falsifiable claims. I challenge you to come up with a blog post with these qualities that can be created in under 15 minutes via AI. While I commend you on actually using an AI tool to validate your assumption, rather than simply hurling AI slop accusations based purely on vibes, I do think you and your AI tool are likely incorrect.
- eventualcomp 13d ago
  > created in under 15 minutes This is an artificial constraint that does not serve the reader. Where did the 15 minute constraint come from?
- brainlessfilth 13d ago
  > Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not. every day I'm more and more reminded that the level of intelligence of the average human even on hn is so low that it makes sense why LLMs took over so hard. Asking an LLM like an oracle as if it could naturally distinguish between LLM writing and human writing.. it's a statistical likelihood next token predictor. LLMs can't even play chess without constantly making illegal moves. They are not intelligent.. and unfortunately, I have bad news for you: neither are you.

Sharlin 13d ago

Having an LLM generate major parts of text that you (implicitly or explicitly) claim as yours is dishonest and plagiarism and should be brought to readers' attention, and it baffles me that many people just don't seem to mind or see anything problematic about it.