good good but are there really websites with 2 or more variously different designs for the same content, like Zen Garden did?
Light theme and dark theme?
Those are palette variations, not enough Zengarden-like
The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
81–90 of 117 posts
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#82> There’s one honest footnote. nails on a chalkboard. when will agents stop writing like this
I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be.
Pangram seems to be very accurate. I don't think that's a good thing though. Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#83> There’s one honest footnote. nails on a chalkboard. when will agents stop writing like this
I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be.
Yeah, especially since we're exposed to so much AI-generated text these days, we may inadvertently pick up some verbal habits from it, the same way people tend to imitate each other. And needless to say false positives can be quite damaging here.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be.
Pangram seems to be very accurate. I don't think that's a good thing though. Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
> Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pangram seems to be very accurate. I don't think that's a good thing though. Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
> Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that. That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
> AI-generated rubbish
Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality.
> you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world
As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget.
Best part is Claude warned me repeteadly that I should tone it down, and I deliberarely ignored it in order to preserve my voice and keep it pure. I'm much more inclined to listen now.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that. That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
> AI-generated rubbish Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality. > you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget. Best…
If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they ARE lazy. Maybe they are unapologetically bullish on AI AND they did it just to spite the haters. But it’s also possible that they have other, more important stuff going on in their life? Or that they find writing legitimately difficult? I’m not excusing anything, or saying that you can’t feel dismay or even sickened. I was merely proposing another perspective, that’s all.
Mostly, I have other, more important stuff going in my life. I did write a lot of this post myself, but used AI to flesh out some of the details because otherwise between my perfectionism and tendency to overthink blog posts, I would have never gotten around to publishing this.
If you think other things are more important than writing, why would you expect anyone to take the time to read it ?
It’s just not a very efficient strategy, it might work for some readers, but as the comments show it’s a big turn off for many. Where it says “There’s one honest footnote”, that’s really grating, like the other commenter I also stopped reading there.
That’s not necessary rational, it’s just that we are social creatures that are really sensitive to those kind of surface level cues in communication, to gauge credibility. I’m sure many authors today use LLM in brainstorming, research, ask it to steelman an argument etc and no readers complain because it doesn’t impact the authorial voice.
The problem then is with letting LLM ‘fleshing out the details’: you end up having the LLM’s style and words all over your text. You can’t really do that without your authorial voice loosing credibility. I think next time, you have to go over it and edit it and make it sound like you.
If you don’t want to that, the good news is that I think people will start to get less critical of sloppy writing, as long as it sounds human. So you could sound convincing while leaving some details raw and not have the LLM have a go at it.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI-generated rubbish Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality. > you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget. Best…
If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human?
Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish?
> I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republished AI amswers.
I can do it too. I consider it rude to reply to people with AI answers during conversation. Not because I hate AI, but because it made the social interaction pointless.
That doesn't somehow invalidate the value of an AI generated article though. Not everyone thinks to prompt it with that exact idea. Not everyone has an AI they can prompt. Not everyone wants to waste their limited tokens on the idea.
I realize that reading Claudish can be aggravating but that doesn't somehow eliminate the ideas contained in the article. Those can still be very valuable, which is why I advocate for quality filters.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human? Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish? > I can…
That's a little metaphysical for my taste. If its the same bytes of text, provenance is destroyed anyways, so who knows if the tree fell in the forest.
"Substantially" to me would mean not your ideas and not your writing. I'm sure there are borderline cases that are hard to decide but a rule of thumb for me would be if it takes more time to read than it took the "author" to write.
Re: The CSS Zen Garden dream, finally shipped
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human? Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish? > I can…
That's a little metaphysical for my taste. If its the same bytes of text, provenance is destroyed anyways, so who knows if the tree fell in the forest. "Substantially" to me would mean not your ideas and not your writing. I'm sure there are borderline cases that are hard to decide but a rule of thumb for me would be if it takes more time to read than it took the "author" to write.
The issue is metaphysical. If AI can produce the exact same output a human would, does it matter who made it?
It's possible for the ideas to come from the author while the writing is outsourced to someone else. Ghostwriting is an established practice.
Effort involved in writing sounds a lot like the "sweat of of the brow" doctrine, which is rejected even by copyright monopolists.