upvote
The irony is it's ai generated. It has codex's markings all over it. That lime green look is a dead giveaway.
reply
>If it’s not worth writing, it’s not worth reading.

that's why I keep all logging thoroughly disabled across all systems.

Saves a lot of room.

I don't get these new logic statements everyone is coming up with against AI systems.

If the excuse is "I meant literature!" well then I argue that where that line is drawn in the sand is exactly the question these kind of black and white expressions strolling entirely past.

(and that's actually the important question; where does it become neglectful for a human to throw an AI into the drivers seat wrt human read media?)

reply
The other similar site making the rounds, https://noslopgrenade.com/, is indeed in part written by AI as evaluated by Pangram.
reply
AI detectors are useless. I don't know how this forum got so infected with Pangram shills, but at this point they need to be banned.
reply
This is an outdated take. It used to be the case, but now detectors have low false positive rates. In other words good precision but not necessarily good recall for detecting AI. So some AI text evades detection, but when it flags something as AI, then it's usually right.
reply
Apart from their own data, a lot of people's anecdotal experience is that its pretty accurate, why would they need to banned for that?
reply
Is that with or without the slop grenade examples included, because I can see how those might trigger the detector
reply
Without.
reply
I believe that one was discussed with the author on HN, and that they used AI to 'copyedit'. Unfortunately that's a trap because if you make a general copyediting request most LLMs will absolutely slopify your work-- and make edits that are unambiguously bad as well as just making it look like lazy llm output.

The better use is to ask it to point out grammatical and spelling errors, or phrasing which is unclear.. then go fix yourself (or direct highly targeted fixes that don't let it slopify). Never hand the clanker the pen for your writing unless you're looking to subject everyone to your Honest Take That Recontextualizes Everything.

reply
IME, it's best to ask an AI to criticize your work and suggest changes without providing actual rewrites, and make the changes you agree with in your own voice.
reply
> If it’s not worth writing, it’s not worth reading.

Would you extend that approach to the conversations you have with AI? If not, why not?

reply
deleted
reply
> If it’s not worth writing, it’s not worth reading.

I mean, you didn't write that, you're just repeating a meme for the 1 millionth time. People have always been saying things they didn't write, and AI is just one new way.

reply
it's 100% written by ai lmao
reply
I just wonder how many people smugly cry 'slop' and then immediately go ask chatgpt about something they want to know about. I suspect it's a surprisinly large amount.
reply
There’s a difference between using and sharing. I don’t want to see your notebook. I want to see the finished document. To some of us, the difference is intuitively obvious, so we’re offended by what we’re getting at work these days.
reply
I'm very envious of your workplace if the stuff before AI was somehow well written. If I had AI 10 years ago I would've been mostly using it to interpret most of the corporate speak e-mails and poorly written technical briefs.
reply
Those are different though. One is just reading your own slop, the other is trying to make others read your slop. I don't love either one, but it's clear that one is a lot worse.
reply