Live data from Hacker News

Warranty Void If Regenerated

nearzero.software

251–260 of 353 posts

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#251
post #238

When I noticed the article header image was generated with AI my interest in reading the article itself dropped to zero.

Can you point out what made you think the images were AI generates? I suspected they were (before reading in this thread everything is AI generated), but I couldn't find any of the usual signs. I thought they were AI because I suspected nobody would pay an illustrator/actually spend time making those illustrations for a story like this. The fact that the whole text was AI came as a surprise. I did notice that weird i…

The combination of a "hand-drawn" art style, with text that is obviously not hand-lettered, is a dead giveaway. It would be very weird for a human to do that.

If you have an eye for fonts, the text itself stands out too, at least to me. The font style of "HARTMANN SOFTWARE MECHANICS" is a particular combination of clean, bland shapes and rounded corners that you rarely see in human-designed fonts, but it's super common in AI-synthesized text. I guess it's sort of an average middle ground in the abstract space of letter forms, and the lack of distinguishing features is what creates the impression.

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#252
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also had no idea this was LLM generated. After reading your comment, I had a similar emotional reaction. Thinking deeper, it seems prudent that we tag submissions like this with a prefix. Example: "LLM: ". This would be similar to "Show HN: ". While we cannot control what the original sources choose to disclose, we can fill that gap ourselves. My point: I agree with you: It is misleading that the blog post does not…

> preface explaining it was written by an LLM why can't the quality of the works stand on its own? Whether there's LLM generation or not should be irrelevant.

I started reading it then found it waffling on quite a bit, then came to the HN comments and saw - ah LLM. I could have saved time if I'd know.

Also I feel a bit conned. I was curious what Tom Hartmann was up to and now it seems he doesn't exist and it's just some slop?

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#253

> The milk pricing tool consumed the feed tool’s output as one of its cost inputs. The format change hadn’t broken the connection — the data still flowed — but it had caused the pricing tool to misparse one field, reading a per-head cost as a per-hundredweight cost, which made the feed expenses look much higher than they were, which made the margin calculations come out lower, which made the recommended prices drop.…

It divided one of the costs for milk by 100, hence the farmer selling for less than cost of production.

The error is that the LLM should have have said that the costs went lower, not higher.

It got the overall logic correct, but had a nonsense sentence in the middle.

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#254
I was going to say the author should try writing fiction because it’s quite engaging, then I realised it’s just AI slop.

It explains why it kind of lost its way towards the end. Another thousand hours of everyone’s time wasted by a slop poster.

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#255
post #223
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because we typically want to know the writer of a piece. we want to know where to lay credit. every book you buy has an author credited. articles in newspapers and magazines have photographer and author attributions. asking an ai to write you a story does not make you an author. if you ask someone to take a photo for you, you don’t magically get to say “look at this photograph, i’m a photographer.” if you ask someone…

> want to know the writer of a piece but you dodged the question i asked - why can't a piece stand on the contents, rather than its pedigree? Would you care if a writer used a pen name? Does that in any way diminish their works? What about the unknown editors that contributed?

why does it bother you to give attribution? why do you think crediting the writer impacts how the piece stands?

we have pop musicians who produce massive hits under their names and the song writers are still given credit in liner notes and in the tracks details on spotify or wherever.

if it’s created by a bot, id take it even further and say which version of which model actually generated it should be declared. why would anyone be against giving proper attribution?

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#256
post #179
post #61

I'm trying to sort out my own emotions on this. I did not realize this was AI generated while reading it until I came to the comments here... And I feel genuinely had? Like "oh wow, you got me"... I don't like this feeling. It's certainly the longest thing (I know about) I've taken the time to read that was AI generated. The writing struck me as genuinely good, like something out of The New Yorker. I found the story…

I have the same issue with AI generated music : it can be quite good to say the least. But I deeply feel that art only matters if there is an artist. The artist wants to convey something. What makes you uneasy (if you are like me) is that a machine deliberately created emotions in your brain. And positive emotions, at that. It’s really something I can’t stand.

I different way of reframing this point is looking at some of the modern art that's highly celebrated, without the human component of what it represents, the art itself isn't that good.

So, the guy who suspends buckets of paint with a hole in the bottom to make patterns has an idea of what he's creating. The guy who just put a few strips of electrical tape in different colours had an idea of what he was trying to convey. The guy who flings paint against a wall also has an idea of what he's creating. The guy who made all the white paintings. All that art is trivial to copy in the same style, maybe even an exact copy for the electrical tape, but it's the artist's intention that makes it worth more than a toddler's painting.

Personally, I think most of that abstract art is pointless, because I don't really see how the artist's vision is represented by whatever the mess they've created is, but I definitely understand that at least they had an idea that they wanted to convey. A machine creating the same thing has no meaning behind it, it's just a waste of paint and canvas.

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say the difference was functional. If you don't think the presence of a human on the other end matters (materially or not), feel free to continue this conversation with an LLM simulation of me. You can even prompt it so that you logically triumph and convince "me".

I'm asking you to explain what the actual difference is and you're avoiding the question. If we had a complete black box where you submitted Prompt and out came Thing, and you had zero clue what said black box actually did, could you claim creation over Thing? What does knowing that it's a human vs LLM make materially different in terms of whether or not you created it?

No please, I also agree with parent poster. Talk to the LLM, cause the human ain't listening.

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#258
This is a neat experiment, and I read the story before joining the conversation here and realizing it was written the way it was.

Many people here already chimed in on the emotion of being caught reading something that might not have felt AI so I will offer another angle. Akin to many The New Yorker article in the past, I felt disconnected with the article for a good portion at the beginning. So much so that I had to skip most of it.

The piece that got me very hooked was when he drove to Carol Lindgren’s farm. I read the remainder of the text and thought the content was engaging and thought provoking, in some sense. I loved the idea of manual override that logged into the system and changed the system behaviour over time. That's something that got me thinking about AI, actually.

Now, I would be curious which part of the author's genesis made it into the final text and how much of that couples with what I found to be intellectually engaging.

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say the difference was functional. If you don't think the presence of a human on the other end matters (materially or not), feel free to continue this conversation with an LLM simulation of me. You can even prompt it so that you logically triumph and convince "me".

I'm asking you to explain what the actual difference is and you're avoiding the question. If we had a complete black box where you submitted Prompt and out came Thing, and you had zero clue what said black box actually did, could you claim creation over Thing? What does knowing that it's a human vs LLM make materially different in terms of whether or not you created it?

And I - or did I turn this thread over to an LLM already? - am asking you a question in return, whose answer should give you the answer you want.

Re: Warranty Void If Regenerated

#260
I had no idea it was AI assisted (as another comment put it). However I am fine with this... I would certainly enhance my long form content like the author described. The author mentioned the use of world bible and style guides, and it shows through in the consistency and tightness of the article. And that is key... to take something AI generated (based on a prompt) and rework it systematically in an iterative human-in-the loop. The end result was a great read.
Post reply on HN