This article is so interesting, but I can’t shake the feeling it was written by AI. The writing style has that feel for me. Maybe that shouldn’t bother me? Like, maybe the author would never have had time to write this otherwise, and I would never have learned about his experience. But I can't help wishing he'd just written about it himself. Maybe that's unreasonable--I shouldn't expect people to do extra work for fr…
This article is so interesting, but I can’t shake the feeling it was written by AI. The writing style has that feel for me.
A bunch of these have been showing up on HN recently. I can't help but feel that we're being used as guinea pigs.
This article is so interesting, but I can’t shake the feeling it was written by AI. The writing style has that feel for me. Maybe that shouldn’t bother me? Like, maybe the author would never have had time to write this otherwise, and I would never have learned about his experience. But I can't help wishing he'd just written about it himself. Maybe that's unreasonable--I shouldn't expect people to do extra work for fr…
The philosophically interesting point is that kids growing up today will read an enormous amount of AI content, and likely formulate their own writing like AI. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years a lot of journalism feels like AI, even if it's written by a human
strong disagree. it's very similar to anti-phishing training/tests. also, being tagged as a company that cares that its potential new hires are not lazy programmers that just copy&paste because someone told them too would more than likely be taken as a positive not a negative.
anti phishing tests are stupid in a similar manner, clicking a link should not fail you
why would you click the link? you absolutely should fail.
It’s incredibly annoying to read. So many super short sentences with the “not just X. Also Y” format. Little hooks like “The attack vector?” “Not fancy security tools. Not expensive antivirus software. Just asking my coding assistant…” I actually feel like AI articles are becoming easier to spot. Maybe we’re all just collectively noticing the patterns.
I'm regularly asked by coworkers why I don't run my writing through AI tools to clean it up and instead spend a time iterating over it, re-reading, perhaps with a basic spell checker and maybe grammar check. That's because, from what I've seen to date, it'd take away my voice. And my voice -- the style in which I write -- is my value. It's the same as with art... Yes, AI tools can produce passable art, but it feels s…
It also slopifies your work in a way that's immediately obvious. I can tell with high confidence when someone at work runs their email through ChatGPT and it makes me think less of the person now that I have to waste time reading through an overly verbose email with very little substance to it when they could have just sent the prompt and saved us all the time.
This article was written by an LLM. I get that the author might be self-conscious about his English writing skills, but I would still much rather read the original prompt that the author put into ChatGPT, instead of the slop that came out. The story - if true - is very interesting of course. Big bummer therefore that the author decided to sloppify it. David, could you share as a response to this comment the original…
thanks for the feedback. just fyi - this went though 11 different versions before reaching this point. so I am not able to share the full chat because i used Claude with google docs integration. but hears the google doc i started with https://docs.google.com/document/d/1of_uWXw-CppnFtWoehIrr1ir... this and the following prompt ``` 'help me turn this into a blog post. keep things interesting, also make sure you take a…
just fyi - this went though 11 different versions before reaching this point.
So much for AI improving efficiency.
You could have written a genuine article several times over. Or one article and proofread it.
Doing this in the context of blockchain is probably a filter. Only folks who don't think his is all a scam anyway would apply there. So you filter for getting the more gullible folks. That are more likely to have a wallet somewhere. Just like nigerian prince scams are always full of typos and grammar issues. Because only those not recognizing that as obvious scams click the link and thereby this is a filter to increa…
That’s a rude way to put it. I think crypto is full on BS but I have many very smart, self aware friends who are into blockchain. What this is a strong filter for people likely to have crypto wallets on their dev machines.
they may be self aware but if they're into blockchain they're unlikely to be scam aware!
It’s incredibly annoying to read. So many super short sentences with the “not just X. Also Y” format. Little hooks like “The attack vector?” “Not fancy security tools. Not expensive antivirus software. Just asking my coding assistant…” I actually feel like AI articles are becoming easier to spot. Maybe we’re all just collectively noticing the patterns.
I'm regularly asked by coworkers why I don't run my writing through AI tools to clean it up and instead spend a time iterating over it, re-reading, perhaps with a basic spell checker and maybe grammar check. That's because, from what I've seen to date, it'd take away my voice. And my voice -- the style in which I write -- is my value. It's the same as with art... Yes, AI tools can produce passable art, but it feels s…
I manage an employee from another country and speaks English as a second language. The way they learned English gives them a distinct speaking style that I personally find convincing, precise and engaging. I started noticing their writing losing that voice, so I asked if they were using an LLM and they were. It was a tough conversation because as a native English speaker I have it easy, so I tried to frame my side of the conversation as purely my personal observation that I could see the change in tone and missed the old one. They've modified their use of LLMs to restore their previous style, but I still wonder if I was out of line socially for saying anything. English is tough, and as a manager I have a level of authority that is there even when I think it isn't. I don't know the point, except that I'm glad you're keeping your voice.
Far better at catching some types of mistakes. Word only has this many hardcoded rules past the basic grammar. LLMs operate on semantics, and pick up on errors like "the sentence is grammatically correct, but uses an obviously wrong term, given the context".
That's not the kind of thing I'd trust to a language model: I'd expect it to persuade me to change something correct to something incorrect more often than it catches a genuine error. But ymmv, I suppose.
I've had good results with doing similar. My spelling and grammar have always been a challenge and, even when I put the effort into checking something, I get blind to things like repeating words or phases when I try to restructure sentences.
I sometimes also ask for justification of why I should change something which I hope, longer term, rubs off and helps me improve on my own.
Why censor your answer? The F is for Fucking. DFE: Delete Fucking Everything.
It's a joke. An older version of the joke, from Usenet, is that RTFM stands for "Read The Manual". The gag is that the newbie asking the question will wonder why the F wasn't included in the expansion, and rapidly figure it out. Or they ask, and you make fun of them for it. The joke is either kinda cerebral or really juvenile... and the tension between the two is part of the joke.