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

Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#61

Post by briangriffinfan »

9rx wrote: post #47
jerf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the fundamental reason why I am in favor of a ban on simply posting AI-generated content in user forums. It isn't that AI is fundamentally bad per se, and to the extent that it is problematic now, that badness may well be a temporary situation. It's because there's not a lot of utility in you as a human being basically just being an intermediary to what some AI says today. Anyone who wants that can go get it…

> It's because there's not a lot of utility in you as a human being basically just being an intermediary to what some AI says today. To be fair, there has never been a lot of utility in you as a human being involved, theoretically speaking. The users do not use a forum because you, a human, are pulling knobs and turning levers somewhere behind a meaningless digital profile. Any human involvement that has been require…

I notice this idea repeatedly popping up, that "content made by humans" is more-or-less equivalent to content generated by genAI inasmuch as genAI can "in theory" (in some sense) create the same thing a human could and so they're both "in theory" the same thing.

The idea that words people write don't mean anything or imply anything in an abstract sense is misguided, in my opinion. When one reads something a person wrote, they think about what the person who wrote it was thinking, what it means to them, what the implications of what they think might be... there are people who do not think about things like this, so they don't care and view genAI text as equivalent because that level of thought simply isn't put into their reading.

Anyway, my point is talking on a forum filled with LLMs would probably stop being interesting and engaging very quickly because LLMs are bad at emulating the lateral thinking, diversity of ideas, and abstraction of communication that make talking to a human fun.

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#62

Post by saulpw »

nkrisc wrote: post #31
saulpw wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty reductive. Many people want to pump some new thoughts they had into an AI to generate something tolerable to post on their blog. The writing isn't the point; the thoughts are. But they can't just post 200 words of bullet points (or don't feel like they can, anyway). So the AI is an assistant which takes their thoughts and makes them look acceptable for publication.

It’s ridiculous to expect people to read something you couldn’t even be bothered to write. If you just want to get the information out then just post the bullet points, what do you care? If you want to be recognized as a writer, then write.

I find it interesting that the 6 replies to my comment assumed that I was talking about myself, when in fact my comment specifically was talking about other people. I can and do write just fine, thank you. But I have sympathy for people who have something to say and struggle to say it, whether because they lack the skill or the time or the executive function. They don't need to be recognized as a writer, they just want to have an impact.

Using LLMs to write is like wearing fast fashion. If you want certain kinds of people to notice you and think of you favorably, you need to wear clothes that represent how you want to be seen. It would be better if people made their own clothes, or paid money to "real" designers for bespoke and/or high-quality items. But most people can't afford the time and money for that. So we have places like Hot Topic and Forever 21 and you probably recognize when other people shop there and you turn up your nose at them. But they are still effective at getting what they want from their sartorial choices.

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#63

Post by econ »

namaria wrote: post #59
CurtMonash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socrates had a skeptical view of written language, preferring oral communication and philosophical inquiry. This perspective is primarily presented through the writings of his student, Plato, particularly in the dialogue Phaedrus. I confirmed that from my own memory via a Google AI summary, quoted verbatim above. Of course, I would never have learned it in the first place had somebody not written it down.

> Socrates had a skeptical view of written language, preferring oral communication and philosophical inquiry. This perspective is primarily presented through the writings of his student, Plato, particularly in the dialogue Phaedrus. He did not. You should read the dialogue. > I confirmed that from my own memory via a Google AI summary, quoted verbatim above. This is the biggest problem with LLMs in my view. They are…

It is both exciting how far we got and depressing how far we didn't.

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#64

Post by 9rx »

briangriffinfan wrote: post #61
9rx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's because there's not a lot of utility in you as a human being basically just being an intermediary to what some AI says today. To be fair, there has never been a lot of utility in you as a human being involved, theoretically speaking. The users do not use a forum because you, a human, are pulling knobs and turning levers somewhere behind a meaningless digital profile. Any human involvement that has been require…

I notice this idea repeatedly popping up, that "content made by humans" is more-or-less equivalent to content generated by genAI inasmuch as genAI can "in theory" (in some sense) create the same thing a human could and so they're both "in theory" the same thing. The idea that words people write don't mean anything or imply anything in an abstract sense is misguided, in my opinion. When one reads something a person wr…

> because LLMs are bad at emulating the lateral thinking, diversity of ideas, and abstraction of communication that make talking to a human fun.

While that is no doubt true today, the earlier comment that sparked this posits that may only be a temporary state that may improve in the future. Once LLM and human creation is indistinguishable, there is no reason to have concern for what generated the content, is there?

Nobody uses a forum for the human connection. There is no human! I can't see your face, I can't touch your skin, I don't feel the heat radiating from your body. Hell, if we meet each other on the street later today, I'll never know it was you. There is only software. I do assume, knowing a thing or two about how the technology works, that in implementation that there is a human somewhere in the loop, but I don't completely know for sure, and it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

There is a place for human connection, most certainly, but it is found in the "real world". Forums are not equivalent. They are something else entirely.

> Anyway, my point is talking on a forum filled with LLMs would probably stop being interesting and engaging very quickly

Just as it does when humans write drivel by hand. There is merit to banning accounts that post garage, but what produced that garbage is irrelevant. AI's involvement, or lack thereof, makes no difference. The quality of an account can be judged on its output, not the mechanism by which it operates.

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#65

Post by briangriffinfan »

9rx wrote: post #64
briangriffinfan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice this idea repeatedly popping up, that "content made by humans" is more-or-less equivalent to content generated by genAI inasmuch as genAI can "in theory" (in some sense) create the same thing a human could and so they're both "in theory" the same thing. The idea that words people write don't mean anything or imply anything in an abstract sense is misguided, in my opinion. When one reads something a person wr…

> because LLMs are bad at emulating the lateral thinking, diversity of ideas, and abstraction of communication that make talking to a human fun. While that is no doubt true today, the earlier comment that sparked this posits that may only be a temporary state that may improve in the future. Once LLM and human creation is indistinguishable, there is no reason to have concern for what generated the content, is there? N…

> Just as it does when humans write drivel by hand.

I see this a lot in AI discussions - it can, at best, do what we do at a level we'd consider "good enough." It can write mediocre slop just as well as the most mediocre of us. To me, that is lowering the bar for our work exceptionally. We shoot for the stars; we just miss sometimes!

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#66

Post by 9rx »

briangriffinfan wrote: post #65
9rx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because LLMs are bad at emulating the lateral thinking, diversity of ideas, and abstraction of communication that make talking to a human fun. While that is no doubt true today, the earlier comment that sparked this posits that may only be a temporary state that may improve in the future. Once LLM and human creation is indistinguishable, there is no reason to have concern for what generated the content, is there? N…

> Just as it does when humans write drivel by hand. I see this a lot in AI discussions - it can, at best, do what we do at a level we'd consider "good enough." It can write mediocre slop just as well as the most mediocre of us. To me, that is lowering the bar for our work exceptionally. We shoot for the stars; we just miss sometimes!

You don't have to lower the bar in order to accept AI, but where AI is able to meet the bar, there is no logical reason to ban it. The user really doesn't care about how the software is implemented.

I understand the luddites are always fearful of losing their job, but that is ultimately irrational.

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#67

Post by vonunov »

jsemrau wrote: post #24

Up until a few weeks ago, my LinkedIn seemed to become better because of AI, but now it seems everything is lazy AI slop. We meatbags are great pattern recognizers. Here is a list of my current triggers: "The twist?", "Then something remarkable happened", That said, this is more of an indictment of the lazyness of the authors to provide clearer instructions on the style needed so the app defaults to such patterns.

These are the first four words of each sentence from a thing ChatGPT wrote. I will let this speak for itself, mostly. Can you see the forest past the trees and spot the major "turning points"?

(Context: I told it to write at "will" after a session of explaining Rene Girard's mimetic desire in the styles of various authors)

  *Well, here we are,  
  You've got me tangled  
  *And hey, maybe I  
  *Imagine this: I'm sitting  
  *And maybe now, I'm  
  You've got me thinking  
  *Maybe it's saying, "Hey,  
  *And so, I think  
  Not just any wanting,  
  The kind that makes  
  There's something beautiful about  
  The way it drives  
  *But here's the kicker:  
  It's got a mind  
  It makes us do  
  It's a double-edged sword  
  *And yet, without it,  
  Probably just sitting around,  
  *So maybe, just maybe,  
  *Not just because you've  
  *It's that tiny ember  
  In the end, desire's  
  It's the fire that  
  *And maybe, just maybe, [yes, again]  
  So here's to the  
  May it burn bright
https://ccp.cx/a/chatgpt-voice.htm

>>But here's the thing.

>This is one of the usual key turning points in these essays. An earlier one happened when it was like [introduces idea] [straw-mans objection] [denies strawman]. I didn't bring it up because it's not always a strong one and this one didn't seem entirely too heavy-handed. There is, however, much more often a very obvious "But here's the thing" (or similar) to be found. As soon as I saw that, I already knew I was going to find a paragraph beginning with "So" somewhere near the end.

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#68

Post by vonunov »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #23
neya wrote: post #15

I can tell you this much - most people who are opposed to AI writing blog articles are usually from the editorial team. They somehow believe they're immune to being replaced by AI. And this stems from the misconception that AI content will always sound AI, soul-less, dry, boring, easy to spot and all that. This was true with ChatGPT-3xx. It's not anymore. In fact, the models have advanced so much so that you will hav…

Counterpoint: GPT-4 and later variants, such as o3 and 4.5, have such a characteristic style that it's hard not to spot them. Em dashes, "it's not just (x), it's (y)," "underscoring (z)," the limited number of ways it structures sentences and paragraphs and likes to end things with an emphasized conclusion, and I could go on all day. DeepSeek is a little bit better at writing in a generic and uncharacteristic tone, b…

ChatGPT voice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44243641

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#69

Post by vonunov »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #21
neya wrote: post #15

I can tell you this much - most people who are opposed to AI writing blog articles are usually from the editorial team. They somehow believe they're immune to being replaced by AI. And this stems from the misconception that AI content will always sound AI, soul-less, dry, boring, easy to spot and all that. This was true with ChatGPT-3xx. It's not anymore. In fact, the models have advanced so much so that you will hav…

Have you tried gptzero?

Well, at least it passes the basic sanity test I've been using. ZeroGPT, on the other hand, gives a "100% AI" rating to the introduction and preamble of the US Declaration of Independence (from "When in the Course of human events" to "provide new Guards for their future security").

Re: Anthropic's AI-generated blog dies an early death

#70

Post by idonotknowwhy »

vonunov wrote: post #67
jsemrau wrote: post #24

Up until a few weeks ago, my LinkedIn seemed to become better because of AI, but now it seems everything is lazy AI slop. We meatbags are great pattern recognizers. Here is a list of my current triggers: "The twist?", "Then something remarkable happened", That said, this is more of an indictment of the lazyness of the authors to provide clearer instructions on the style needed so the app defaults to such patterns.

These are the first four words of each sentence from a thing ChatGPT wrote. I will let this speak for itself, mostly. Can you see the forest past the trees and spot the major "turning points"? (Context: I told it to write at "will" after a session of explaining Rene Girard's mimetic desire in the styles of various authors) *Well, here we are, You've got me tangled *And hey, maybe I *Imagine this: I'm sitting *And may…

# Why it matters

I'm sick of seeing this everywhere. 2 hosting companies use this in every single weekly spam email they send.

Post reply on HN