If this is the case then I simply won’t engage.
90 % will not engage and you’re left with the 10% who are willing to put everything they do out there publicly and permanently- probably because they have an ulterior motive or commercial reason to do so
One thing missing here is the maturity of agent harnesses. I’m finding the free deepseek flash model in opencode can handle all of my simple tasks, because the harness is so good. Soon that will be a local model.
And the reality is that other industries aren’t finding the use for LLMs as much as programmers are. Sure there are some benefits but you can’t fire your marketing department and replace it with AI
AI is google-in-a-box, and there will be dedicated hardware to run it locally like there was with the crypto ASICs.
I feel the only ones losing are the AI startups and Google. This is why they're trying to morph into a social-media like experience of simulated human interaction that can monetize a certain demographic of vulnerable people.
I don't think they wrote the comment because of the impact to Valve. After all, they said legal rather than ethical and the page already seems to be gone (hopefully just a temporary hosting thing due to popularity rather than a takedown thing, but it will soon become the latter regardless).
If you want these kinds of things to stay up long enough for many people to see/use them you have to work around the legal limitations (regardless of whether they make ethical sense). Most commonly, make the site apply as a diff to the original content/assets the user provides.
But what about the people who aren't idiots and can read sarcasm without the /s? I reflexively downvote ever comment I come across with a /s. People aren't idiots until you treat them like one.
But what about people who are in different parts of the world and don't inherently understand your meaning? That is terrible behaviour to downvote the notation.
Text is notorious for not conveying context. Sarcasm can easily be seen as serious by some people, why is why we have the /s notation to make it obvious.
People aren't idiots, they come from different backgrounds, locations, languages, and all use English as a common tongue. Have some consideration and stop thinking you are so big and clever.
The best sarcasm is exactly the one where it could be interpreted as written and people misreading it is part of the fun. If you are going to add sarcasm marks to make sure that absolutely everyone gets what you are intending then whats the point of using sarcasm in the first place instead of clearly writing what you mean?
You have a point when the situation is professional workspace communication. I'm able to code switch and drop idioms out of my language because e. g. "that's a home run" doesn't make sense if you're not American and have played baseball. But we're on a very nerdy entertainment website. It's not that I'm big and mighty it's that I hate having to dumb down discussion. This is why I call out people for throwing around words like scam to mean generically bad but not actually a scam and you pay for something that wasn't delivered. If you pay for something and you get what was ordered and it works, but the website to order on made it painful to make the order that's not a scam!
Poe's law exists but I'd rather pull up in discussion and intellect because I want to believe that people are smarter than we assume they are, in this day and age.
It’s no more creepy than every person in the world holding a camera in their hand/pocket and every business and home in a city recording passers by 24/7.
Agreed. The post looks great. The story is great but the AI style in this case does distract.
I'm not against using AI for writing at all but you want to be careful that the output doesn't contain too much of this noise over signal type of wording that repeats and wants to just sell you something.
Thats a literary style called anaphora. Some people learned this in school, so they can use it to emphasize something. IMHO this is not a strong sign of AI, in fact I think this text has no strong AI indicators.
Something having name is not a sign of not-ai. It when it is in places for no reason other then blow up the text length. As if school kid was trying to make the text longer to fit the minimal amount of words.
Also, “ What I didn't expect was what happened next.”
The Unicode arrows is also something Claude is using really often: “Camera -> RTMP ingest -> MediaKind -> broadcast partners -> your TV.”
And the table at the end is such a Claude thing.
The general style, a series of short sentences that feel like they are building up a punchline is what tells me it’s Claude, but the whole thing does stink of LLM generation
I found myself writing exactly like this for a while after reading pages and pages of this special construct before my bs detector understood what it is...
I love how in one post everyone piles on someone for using the word "retarded", meanwhile in another post someone with autism gets piled on for using AI for accessibility.
I think in this case the human effort was put into the actual discovery, honestly I don't mind if AI helped him write the blog post if the result is enjoyable and not sloppy
I don't mind it here at all, in fact I didn't even notice it's AI before reading this comment. It's clearly not a one-shot AI slop but a well thought out and edited by a human post.
Not everyone who has something interesting to say is a good writer, and I think it's great if AI can help them tell their stories.
Yeah I used Claude as a writing assistant for the initial draft. I'm autistic and long-form writing isn't my strong suit, getting a 4000 word blog post to flow well is genuinely hard for me. But I do edit it pretty heavily after, the voice and the jokes and the structure are mine, the AI just helps me get a baseline down so I'm not staring at a blank page. The research, the screenshots, the disclosure, that's all me. I've been doing this stuff for years.
While I appreciate the positivity, but I've honestly grown to appreciate grammar mistakes. Just like it's not X, it's Y indicated AI, those indicated that the effort behind was human.
Honestly, no need to write 4000 words if the story can be told in 400. The story is what matters, not word count or "flow".
I think the criticism is constructive. It's really not about hating. I'd wager many of the people who convey this criticism do use AI to aid their writing as well.
It's just that this one in particular lacks one more edit pass removing some of the AI noise on branding-speak and needless repetition (AI tends to list things and beat the point).
Don't take my criticism of AI writing as criticism of your work. This is stellar stuff! What I'm trying to say is I'd really like to hear it in your words.
I'm glad to hear the voice is yours, and I apologize for assume it was the AI's.
Understandable, but open disclosure would help. You of all people must know how hard it is to hide things from being discovered, and this is something that will be discovered without any doubt. Just explain it and most reasonable people will understand. Some won't but at least they will be honestly warned.
> I'm autistic and long-form writing isn't my strong suit, getting a 4000 word blog post to flow well is genuinely hard for me.
I find the way I interact with the world is exceptionally different from the descriptions of everybody else. Some of the symptoms of such manifest as difficulty communicating... with most people.
There are a subset of people who I have not only no problem, but seemingly a drastically increased information exchange rate.
Do with that observation what you will, but I don't write for the lowest common denominator, the preferred style of AI, because I don't write for the people who cant be bothered to understand me. I'm writing for people like me.
n.b. Maybe you are writing for the lowest common denominator. In which case, say that: "Yeah I know it sounds like AI but it's supposed to be advertising, not a technical white paper or PoC"
> the AI just helps me get a baseline down so I'm not staring at a blank page.
If this was true, the top comment wouldn't be a complaint about how the voice of the article sounds "inauthenticlly human" or like an LLM. It's having a stronger influence on your writing than you're giving it credit for. It's on you to decide if or how much you care, but ideally you wouldn't be lying to either yourself or your readers.
Look I don't like to see a wall of AI slop as much as the next person (see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48551462), but "just post the prompt" is also too dismissive. AI had access to information that we don't have and all you see here is probably a compilation of multiple prompts, edits and various sources (like author's notes) for context.
We can adjust our expectations for people to take some time to make the output theirs.
OTOH, and this is me arguing against myself, maybe this is not too different than the million web sites we saw using the unmodified default bootstrap theme.
I guess my opinions as well as the response of the community are still evolving.
> AI is here, not everybody can write well, AI is gonna be used.
I don't know about you, but I'd love to read a fascinating story written by a relatively poor writer. But if they can't be bothered to write, I assume the story can't be that good.
But this isn't a story, literature, or a fancy piece of art; it's merely a technical blog post that discloses a security vulnerability. Here, the writing serves only as a vehicle to convey a message. Once you've received it, its purpose has been fulfilled. I would agree with you if the writing were an important part of the message, but here it is not. Not everybody can write well, and this guy clearly had something to tell, and that is what matters.
> But this isn't a story, literature, or a fancy piece of art; it's merely a technical blog post that discloses a security vulnerability. Here, the writing serves only as a vehicle to convey a message. Once you've received it, its purpose has been fulfilled.
I disagree wholeheartedly. I'm not a machine. I'm a thinking, feeling, human being.
As a mathematician, I can certainly appreciate precise formulations. They have their place. But this is not that place.
> Not everybody can write well, and this guy clearly had something to tell, and that is what matters.
I'm sadenned that he wouldn't tell it in his way. I'd much rather read his own (poorly written?) words.
