upvote

points

by Kwpolska12 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby christkv12 hours ago|
next
[-]
Is he even a real person I wonder
reply
upvoteby morkalork9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
He was murdered on a Condé Nast corporate retreat and they have been using an AI in his likeness to write articles ever since!
reply
upvoteby christkv8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Would make for a good book, company hires famous writer, trains an ai on them, tortures them to sign over their likeness rights and then murders them. Keeps up appearances of life via video gen, voice gen and writing gen.
reply
upvoteby morkalork8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Almost the plot of The Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Congress_(2013_film)

reply
upvoteby christkv7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Going on my to watch list
reply
upvoteby cubefox7 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> his writing is terrible and extremely AI-enthusiastic

I disagree, his writings are generally quite good. For example, in a recent article [1] on a hostile Gemini distillation attempt, he gives a significant amount of background, including the relevant historical precedent of Alpaca, which almost any other journalist wouldn't even know about.

1: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/02/attackers-prompted-gemini...

reply
upvoteby lich_king5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
For what it's worth, both the article you're linking to and the one this story is about are immediately flagged by AI text checkers as LLM-generated. These tools are not perfect, but they're right more often than they're wrong.
reply
upvoteby GaggiX4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>These tools are not perfect, but they're right more often than they're wrong.

Based on what in particular? The only time I have used them is to have a laugh.

reply
upvoteby lich_king4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Based on experience, including a good number of experiments I've done with known-LLM output and contemporary, known-human text. Try them for real and be surprised. Some of the good, state-of-the-art tools include originality.ai and Pangram.

A lot of people on HN have preconceived notions here based on stories they read about someone being unfairly accused of plagiarism or people deliberately triggering failure modes in these programs, and that's basically like dismissing the potential of LLMs because you read they suggested putting glue on a pizza once.

reply
upvoteby GaggiX4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I had fun with AI detectors in particular for images, even the best one (Hive in my opinion) was failing miserably with my tests, maybe the one trained on text are better but I find it hard to trust them, in particular if someone know how to fiddle with them.
reply
upvoteby cubefox4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> immediately flagged by AI text checkers as LLM-generate

Proof? Which one? I would like to test a few other articles with your checker to test its accuracy.

reply
upvoteby tocitadel12 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Also filtered out the following slop generators from my RSS feed, which significantly enhanced my reading experience:

Jonathan M. Gitlin

Ashley Belanger

Jon Brodkin

I wonder how soon I will be forced to whitelist only a handful of seasoned authors.

reply
upvoteby stavros8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> I wonder how soon I will be forced to whitelist only a handful of seasoned authors.

Twenty years ago?

reply