Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Grimblewald's commentslogin

Its like they don't understand the problem common crawl solved rather neatly. You think the skid scrapers are bad? Wait till the competent players lose access to CC.

Let's fucking go, asshats! Destroy the internet to show how valuable your product is.

Cheaper isn't as much of a problem as functional.

I think precisely the opposite: the marginal value of expensive models is quite small.

If I were to guess, cheaper in this context is being used by Apple to catch up to having an AI product with a real moat.

And, of course, Apple’s best moat is the App Store.

The other competitors have their coding and productivity software, all the stuff they built around their models.

Apple doesn’t really have much of that and I think this is essentially their only hope to gain some B2B revenue from AI.


I mean, yeah, if it doesn't work at all nobody will use it. But the big players are spending $1k/mo.+ on AI at this point. That's obviously out of reach for many.

FAQ point 5 is pure comedy.

Bit odd it was missing at all. Makes me wonder how well the core infrastructure you're building on is understood, and how trustworthy any of this really is. If all I'm getting is some vibeslop, with zero expertise or skill added, even basic stuff like this, why shouldnt I just vibe my own better version tailored to my needs exactly? Same headaches as with your app (though likely less give what's on display), only now I dont pay you to give me headaches and I retain control.

The software was never the moat. The skills and experience crystalised within it was, and remains, the product.


1. It's unfinished 2. Textbook slop dump and run

we can see one big initial push, not too suspect. Then a few superficial updates, and then nothing for months.

Unfinished, broken, and ostentiably abandond due to being an unmaintaible nightmare as vibeslop tends to be.


Always with this topic of articles I find a common theme. No one defines the load-bearing terms and just assumes we all mean the same thing by it, which we know is not the case. That lack of engagement with the topic always has the same effect: the few interesting things said, if any, dont apply to the subject matter claimed generally. Its more of an insight into the authors mind, than the claimed topic. Why can't we all just do the more effective thing, and offer our personal definition for what constitutes conciousness, which is the only thing these articles offer. It would save so much time and make discussion far clearer.

I've had some really dumb refusals. Explaining elements of infrared specteoscopy, researching aritifical bud-breaking in agriculture, etc. Anything interesting and non-mainstream is banned. Basically, restricted to answers i'm better of just going to wikipedia for.

Double should map to endash, tripple for em.

Was always one of the first things I would change in Word's autocorrect settings whenever I started with a company-provided installation.

Alternatively, no one sounds like an llm, an llm sounds like someone, typically those close to the median of the training corpus. If AI were genuinly capable of novelty, it would be a big deal, tech bros having enough work ethic to design new detectable prose for an llm is a mssive reach and has no real evidence supporting it, else why do tech bros only tackle the easier issues? Things we have massive well labelled corpi for? Why is it never dishwashing and folding laundry?

I put to you, if you see a trope in AI writing it's because that trope appeared in the training corpus. Therefore, sure, being predjudice against it lets you catch some AI, but you'll also flag human outout. I think that may not be worth it in the end.


Show me a single substantial (5000+ words) piece of writing from before the release of GPT-3 that triggers Pangram with high confidence.

Burden of proof that ai tools aren't dogshit isn't really on me, so pipe down and use a more reasonable register you pissant. This site, even this thread is filled with evidence. You're in no position to demand anything, especially not something apparently demanded in bad faith. A request for info I'd be happy to meet, but not this.

There are many cases out there of people proving that it does happen. I have personal text not published that do trigger all detectors between 70-100% AI depending on the tool. I wont be sharing these, as "providers" of these "tools" would simply add it to training data and continue to merrily overfit.

Bottom line, transformers regress to the mean like many other models, if you as a person produce output aligned with mean of corpus, you'll trigger detection. More importantly, evading detectors is trivial. Find a corpus of text from an author, get an llm to write a note on style, parlance, habits in writing etc. and then use that voice file to drive outputs from an llm. If the source text didnt register as AI, the new ai output also reliably avoids detection.

So my problem is, detection doesnt work, false positives are fact, so these tools at best offer harm.

A bigger problem¸ undermining your request for proof beyond that which many before me, and including me, burned in an effort to make folks see reason, is that even if i handed you proof on a silver platter you wouldnt understand it. If you could, you'd already understand, because the problem and the math are quite simple. Every example text i've offered in the past now registers 100% human, but many I kept to myself continue to show the same problem, and that never changed. So why would I waste my few remaining tools for sanity checking, when all i can expect from that endevour is losing a tool and shifting nothing in the conversation? No, best I keep that to myself for now.


Well, they've mostly left reddit as well, afaik. It's a few stragglers, people being paid to push agenda, and auto-moderation now. I was reading / moderating reddit for over 4 hours a day, every day, for close to a decade. Heavy handed pro israeli censorship and propaganda has seen me pick up and leave, as i know many others have done. I was already wavering, over reddit's support of astroturfing and shill bots which were obvious, detectable, and reddit refused to do anything about it. Even actively supported it. So with the whole denying /actively supporting genocide thing, it was time to hang it up and leave.

If wikipedia is shutting off avenues for community input, maybe that is running it's course as well.

Its been nice internet, I loved you, and I will never forgive google for what they put into motion.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: