271–280 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It then turned out that the developer forgot to mention that originally he did upload an astrology app for review. Gruber felt duped, and noted that it's unclear whether an updated build containing the new astronomy app was ever submitted to Apple for review I think it’s shaping up like he didn’t “forget” to mention it. This looks like an intentional play for attention. It worked very well. Too well, in fact, which…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my question is whether the per-story fact checking is equal, or much less. How could a one man operation have the fact checking machinery of some big paper, eg the NYT? Of course it’s less. Keep in mind that he usually posts multiple times per weekday.
No. You misunderstand my question. Again. I want to know if the human effort, per story, is the same as other publications. Does Gruber make a real fact checking effort, or does he merely trust his gut?
Obviously what I did wasn’t enough, but trust me, I try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You misunderstand my question. Again. I want to know if the human effort, per story, is the same as other publications. Does Gruber make a real fact checking effort, or does he merely trust his gut?
I make a real fact-checking effort. In this case, the developer (Godier) sent me a video of the app in action. It’s a real app. He couldn’t send me a TestFlight to run (he said) because TestFlight submissions are taking a week or longer to get approved. Obviously what I did wasn’t enough, but trust me, I try.
Did you ask him for the full rejection letter? That's the issue I raised below. I'm wondering if he forged the app name.
It seems like the situation still remains a little ambiguous - and forging the name on that letter would be definitive proof.
On the other hand, if you didn't ask for it - why not? It seems like the very least amount of verification you could have done.
Did it simply not occur to you that a source might lie?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been thinking about this. Almost every way we have to tell human from AI apart can be adopted and automated by AI. It's sort of a corollary of "every metric can be gamed". It's disheartening for those of us who intrinsically value human authorship.
Maybe all “content” will just end up devalued and some prestige will move to more physical, local things like live performances, growing your own tomatoes and giving good massages. Nobody will care about showing off their tomatoes online and all that matters is sharing them with real people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am not buying it. Coincidentally: Just in the last few weeks, D'addario, one of largest guitar string manufacturers, posted on Instagram what is clearly an AI-song to advertise its new line of guitar strings. After being called out on it being AI, they posted a mobile-recording of the song recreated in a DAW, but it didn't even match the timing or the notes played. After being called on it AGAIN, they blamed it o…
Reminds me of politicians and public figures saying they got "hacked" after doing/posting something stupid and getting backlash for it. I guess "AI did it" is the new iteration on that.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/my-brain-made-me-...
On the previous HN posts I got this impression: The developer's astrology app containing tarot reading features was rejected from Apple's App Store that prohibits astrology apps. He then replaced the app's content with a clone of, if not the identical open source astronomy app "Dark Hours", copying even the name. The original is here: https://darkhours.app The developer was then in contact with John Gruber, who wrote…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The dog ate my homework" Just blame the next thing down the chain that can't defend itself, so you don't have to take responsibility.
Crazy but my dog once ate half my homework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I think that case is absolutely wild, because ostensibly the point of the recorded music was to showcase the strings.
Wouldn't this be basically fraudulent advertising?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it’s even more stupid because he just could have asked Claude to build it from scratch. I mean, it’s not Rocket science and all of the resources needed are in the public domain. It would be done in 3 days. 4 hours if you want to ship hot garbage.
> 4 hours if you want to ship hot garbage. That seems to be the thing everyone is into, these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Appears to have replaced "fake news" as the go-to response
The issue is fake news is real and has somehow been co-opted by the perpetrators to attack any claim/media group that is critical of them or their actions. If you fact check these people they just scream “fake news” until their followers chant it with them. Huh I guess it is comparable to “it was AI” lol