Live data from Hacker News

Why wordfreq will not be updated

github.com

281–290 of 542 posts

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#281
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they get started?

They likely never started critically thinking, so they never had to get started on not doing so. (If children are never taught to think critically, then...)

It's almost like its a systemic failure that is artificially created so that people wont think critically... hmmm

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#283
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They likely never started critically thinking, so they never had to get started on not doing so. (If children are never taught to think critically, then...)

It's almost like its a systemic failure that is artificially created so that people wont think critically... hmmm

Yeah, it's almost like it has nothing to do with AI

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#284
The year 2021 is to wordfreq what 1945 was to carbon carbon-14 dating.

I guess the same way the scientists had to account for the bomb pulse in order to provide accurate carbon-14 dating, wordfreq would need a magic way to account for non human content.

Saying magic, because unfortunately it was much easier to detect nuclear testing in the atmosphere than to it will be to detect AI-generated content.

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#286
post #218
post #203

I regret the situation led to the OP feel discourage about the NLP community, wo which I belong, and I just want to say "we're not all like that", even though it is a trend and we're close to peak hype (slightly past even?). The complaint about pollution of the Web with artificial content is timely, and it's not even the first time due to spam farms intended to game PageRank, among other nonsense. This may just mean…

> people consuming auto-generated content to keep the masses from away from critical thinking. This is now happening The people who stay away from critical thinking were doing that already and will continue to do so, 'AI' content or not.

I don't know, individually finely tuned addictive content served as real time interactive feedback loops is an other level of propaganda and attention capture tool than largest common denominator of the general crowd served as static passive content.

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#287
post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's high quality when the content is within HN's bubble. Anything related to health, politics, or Microsoft is full of misinformation, ignorance, and garbage like any other site. The Microsoft discussions in particular are extremely low quality.

IMO HN actually scores quite highly in terms of health/politics and so forth content because the both mainstream and fringe ideas get both shown and pushback. A vaping discussion brought up glycerin used was safe and the same thing used in smoke machines and someone else brought up a study showing that smoke machines are an occasional safety issue. Nowhere near every discussion goes that well but stick around and you…

> IMO HN actually scores quite highly in terms of health/politics and so forth content because the both mainstream and fringe ideas get both shown and pushback.

As someone with domain expertise here, I wholeheartedly disagree. HN is very bad at percolating accurate information about topics outside its wheelhouse, like clinical medicine, public health, or the natural sciences. It is also, simultaneously, extremely prone to overestimating its own collective competency at understanding technical knowledge outside its domain. In tandem, those two make for a rather dangerous combination.

Anytime I see a post about a topic within my area of specialty, I know to expect articulate, lengthy, and completely misguided or inaccurate comments dominating the discussion. It's enough of a problem that trying to wade in and correct them is a losing battle; I rarely even bother these days.

It's kind of funny that XKCD #793[0] is written about physicists, because the effect is way worse with software engineers.

[0] https://xkcd.com/793/

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#288
post #220
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there's a minimum "due diligence" bar to meet though before asking, otherwise it comes across as "I'm too lazy to google the reference and connect the dots myself, but can someone just go ahead and distill a nice summary for me"

In this particular case, I was out of the loop regarding the clever analogy myself. I'm now a tad smarter because someone else expressed lack of understanding, and I learned from responses to this (grayed due to downvotes) comment.

The problem is that the answer was a really easy google. I didn't know what low background steel was and I just googled it.

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#289

Enshittification is accelerating. A good 70% of my Facebook feed is now obviously AI generated images with AI generated text blurbs that have nothing to do with the accompanying images likely posted by overseas bot farms. I'm also noticing more and more "books" on Amazon that are clearly AI generated and self published.

> A good 70% of my Facebook feed is now obviously AI generated images with AI generated text blurbs that have nothing to do with the accompanying images likely posted by overseas bot farms.

This is a self-inflicted problem, IMO.

Do you just have shitty friends that share all that crap? Or are you following shitty pages?

I use Facebook a decent amount, and I don't suffer from what you're complaining about. Your feed is made of what you make it. Unfollow the pages that make that crap. If you have friends that share it, consider unfriending or at the very least, unfollowing. Or just block the specific pages they're sharing posts from.

Re: Why wordfreq will not be updated

#290
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse than that. Most people have no idea how far CGI has come, and how easily it is wielded even by a couple of dedicated teens on their home computer, let alone people with a vested interest in faking something for some financial reason. People think they know what a "special effect" looks like, and for the most part, people are wrong . They know what CGI being used to create something obviously impossibl…

Plus, movies continue (for some reason) to be made with very bad and obvious CGI, leading people to believe all CGI is easy to spot.

This is a common survivorship bias fallacy since you only notice the bad CGI.

I'm certain you'd be shocked to see the amount of CG that's in some of your favorite movies made in the last ~10-20 years that you didn't notice because it's undetectable

Post reply on HN