hbjkhgkytfkytv

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by hbjkhgkytfkytv 6mo ago

   I get you but I think it's fair to ask. You have no idea how enraging it is to dedicate a whole hour to someone for interview only to ask at the end (you know at this stage) if they used the product and they say "no" and look
2. 2.▲
   by hbjkhgkytfkytv 6mo ago

   maybe they only like doms
3. 3.▲
   by hbjkhgkytfkytv 7mo ago

   The "no AI" rule finally being official feels like a necessary line in the sand. The real issue isn't just "slop" or bot-spam; it's the cost of entry. HN works because of the "proof of work" behind a
4. 4.▲
   by hbjkhgkytfkytv 7mo ago

   This is the best possible choice. I hope everywhere follows suit.
5. 5.▲
   by hbjkhgkytfkytv 8mo ago

   It was GPT 5.2. Can't remember if I did thinking or not. Note that even after the fallacy was highlighted to the model, it seemed to have a tough time grasping what went wrong.
6. 6.▲
   by hbjkhgkytfkytv 8mo ago

   No, the search is completely an utterly meaningless and annoying. It doesn't matter how well-informed the user is when they click that button, it will become clear that it's useless once they click it. The solution - remove the bu
7. 7.▲
   by hbjkhgkytfkytv 8mo ago

   This is so cool, but the youtube link really sucks as it just points to a search. It would be so much stronger if it pointed to a single video vetted by the author of the page so I know what I'm watching demonstrates the principle in q