Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proof of care in the age of AI

jacobfilipp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Proof of care in the age of AI

#111

Post by lioeters »

zparky wrote: post #61

Not surprised to see such negative comments, this forum is fried by LLMs nowadays. I was immediately intrigued by reading a handwritten blog post, and enjoy ergodic literature, like this! I liked the message too, and this might shove me toward some handwriting projects I've been meaning to tackle lately.

What an interesting word, "ergodic". Searching for its meaning led me to some curious corner of mathematics and physics. Then I found this definition:

> Ergodic literature is a mode of textual organization in which nontrivial effort is required for the reader to traverse the text, beyond ordinary eye movement or turning pages.

The specific use of the term comes from:

  Aarseth, Espen J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature.
Fascinating, it's like an aesthetic choice of medium or form of representation, expanding what text or literature is capable of.

(By the way, is your user name a joke on "sparky", the slang word for an electrician?)

Re: Proof of care in the age of AI

#114

Post by mschuster91 »

arjie wrote: post #95
BeetleB wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not have to second guess/verify stuff humans write...? Of all the reasons to dislike AI writing, this is an odd one. > Using AI for anything (including to "polish" grammar and spelling) is mentally taxing for everyone else. I truly believe that in a few years, the obsession with determining whether an AI wrote some text will be classified as a mental disorder. And I say that with all seriousness.

AI text is just a quick heuristic for garbage. But I’ve always disliked garbage. Even when it came dressed like: How to use Monads When David James was a young child, his mother used to tell him that you could oil vegetables before putting them in the pan. On the ranch in Eastern Kentucky David’s mornings would be spent watering, caring for the cows, and then playing with the dogs. Before he started blah blah blah… a…

> Dude, it’s just a class of this filler text for people whose success criteria is lines of code. At least previously the filler was somewhat skippable.

That is a different problem though. SEO optimization, the bane of modern human existence...

Re: Proof of care in the age of AI

#115

Post by mschuster91 »

BeetleB wrote: post #85
mschuster91 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope we can get to a point where people will stop clutching their pearls over AI writing, I have no interest in entertaining the theater of proof. The problem, at least for me, is that I don't trust AI . Subtle mistakes, outright hallucinations, or mistakes/omissions that an actual expert of the domain would immediately notice, whatever. And as soon as I encounter anything that even looks like one of the typical…

Do you not have to second guess/verify stuff humans write...? Of all the reasons to dislike AI writing, this is an odd one. > Using AI for anything (including to "polish" grammar and spelling) is mentally taxing for everyone else. I truly believe that in a few years, the obsession with determining whether an AI wrote some text will be classified as a mental disorder. And I say that with all seriousness.

> Do you not have to second guess/verify stuff humans write...?

With a human, I can at least have implicit trust based on credentials - e.g. a medical doctor, a scientist or a well-known programmer. Basically, if Raymond Chen writes a blog post detailing how Windows 95 recognized software installers to ward off unwanted modifications to files [1], I'll 100% trust what he writes to be true. But if it's some random blogger, the text reeking of LLM tells, who posts no sources, nothing I can (easily) cross-check? Off to the bin it goes, or if it's something that might actually be useful for me to know being true, I'll go and research it.

Or there's other trust cues for content. A respected academic magazine ranks higher than a "layman's magazine" which ranks higher than a well-respected newspaper which ranks higher than a tabloid which ranks higher than yellow-press which ranks higher than "j0ey r4nd0m" (without bluecheck) on Twitter which ranks higher than "j0ey r4nd0m" (with bluecheck) on Twitter.

It used to be the other way around with Twitter, but nowadays, the bluecheck is mostly used by garbage LLM bots farming views for monetization.

(Side note: the fact that AI training cannot do this kind of "implicit trust" accounting at all and just blindly ingests everything in the corpus into its weights is a huge issue!)

> I truly believe that in a few years, the obsession with determining whether an AI wrote some text will be classified as a mental disorder.

I'd rather say in a few years people who get caught using AI get lynchmob'd. The resistance, particularly among the artist, environmental and worker rights groups, is fierce and it's only increasing with all the negative impacts of AI.

[1] https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20260707-00/?p=11...

Re: Proof of care in the age of AI

#116

Post by zparky »

lioeters wrote: post #111
zparky wrote: post #61

Not surprised to see such negative comments, this forum is fried by LLMs nowadays. I was immediately intrigued by reading a handwritten blog post, and enjoy ergodic literature, like this! I liked the message too, and this might shove me toward some handwriting projects I've been meaning to tackle lately.

What an interesting word, "ergodic". Searching for its meaning led me to some curious corner of mathematics and physics. Then I found this definition: > Ergodic literature is a mode of textual organization in which nontrivial effort is required for the reader to traverse the text, beyond ordinary eye movement or turning pages. The specific use of the term comes from: Aarseth, Espen J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives…

There's a few books that are coupled with the term ergodic literature, chief among them House of Leaves. It really is a thoroughly enjoyable exercise to read that book, I highly recommend.

> (By the way, is your user name a joke on "sparky", the slang word for an electrician?)

It wasn't originally when I used it as a kid, but I grew in to that term later :)

Re: Proof of care in the age of AI

#117

Post by BeetleB »

mschuster91 wrote: post #115
BeetleB wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not have to second guess/verify stuff humans write...? Of all the reasons to dislike AI writing, this is an odd one. > Using AI for anything (including to "polish" grammar and spelling) is mentally taxing for everyone else. I truly believe that in a few years, the obsession with determining whether an AI wrote some text will be classified as a mental disorder. And I say that with all seriousness.

> Do you not have to second guess/verify stuff humans write...? With a human, I can at least have implicit trust based on credentials - e.g. a medical doctor, a scientist or a well-known programmer. Basically, if Raymond Chen writes a blog post detailing how Windows 95 recognized software installers to ward off unwanted modifications to files [1], I'll 100% trust what he writes to be true. But if it's some random blo…

> Basically, if Raymond Chen writes a blog post detailing how Windows 95 recognized software installers to ward off unwanted modifications to files [1], I'll 100% trust what he writes to be true.

OK, now what if tomorrow Raymond Chen writes a blog post that was partially or wholly authored by an LLM. Would you trust it as much as one entirely written by Raymond? Why or why not?

Re: Proof of care in the age of AI

#118

Post by lioeters »

zparky wrote: post #116
lioeters wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an interesting word, "ergodic". Searching for its meaning led me to some curious corner of mathematics and physics. Then I found this definition: > Ergodic literature is a mode of textual organization in which nontrivial effort is required for the reader to traverse the text, beyond ordinary eye movement or turning pages. The specific use of the term comes from: Aarseth, Espen J. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives…

There's a few books that are coupled with the term ergodic literature, chief among them House of Leaves. It really is a thoroughly enjoyable exercise to read that book, I highly recommend. > (By the way, is your user name a joke on "sparky", the slang word for an electrician?) It wasn't originally when I used it as a kid, but I grew in to that term later :)

Wonderful, I read a little about House of Leaves, and am intrigued. What a great way to have a book recommended, looking forward to reading it. :)

Re: Proof of care in the age of AI

#119

Post by cwmoore »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #109
cwmoore wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like work for a personally aligned local agent interacting with your past and future media timeline. It probably exists in some form, any suggestions?

> This sounds like work for a personally aligned local agent interacting with your past and future media timeline. I have one of those. It's me. I'm my personally aligned local agent. You can be yours too, as long as the atrophy hasn't set in yet.

We all have our selves.

I was thinking more of the problem of choice from an ever vaster array of options within limited resources of time and attention.

But yeah. Still awake, thanks.

Post reply on HN