I'm sure they tried. "they" are probably security engineers and in my experience such people have a very different idea of what makes good UX

This one has at least 20 distinct text styles. They are seemingly deployed in random ways, following no discernible hierarchy. the smallest text is "9.6px" which is not only small, but also fuzzy due to the 0.6 pixels (?? why) making it impossible to read.

Likewise for the size, placement, and emphasis of various widgets on the page. Altogether it's just a big pile of information. It's hard to know where to begin, or how one's eye should move around the page

(In their defense: this particular UI is attempting to convey a very complicated sequence of interrelated events from multiple data sources. Doing that well isn't easy.)

Neat! I wonder what's so strange about it besides the heat

> because there is essentially no scientific explanation for its existence.

Wait whut

If you're referring to my post ...then of course I agree with you!

I should clarify that I am in no way whatsoever opposed to AI usage. I use it all day, every day like most of us here and, if we are doing labels now, then I guess I would consider myself generally AI-positive.

What I don't like is when people use AI to produce low-effort content, and then package it in such a way that it masquerades as high-effort content. Of course what is low-effort or what is high-effort are highly subjective. But publishing an article that has your name at the top, it's written in the 1st person, and yet it's very obviously 100% copy/pasted AI output -- this falls on the wrong side of ethical for me.

I suppose OP could put "AI-generated" or some such disclaimer on the article. But I would rather people just revise the output, actually engage with what they're creating before they dump it on the rest of us.

Hehe. I chuckle because I've been reading comments like this one for more than 10 years now. You might be right. But if HackerNews is dying then it sure is taking its time.

Yes, the post reads to me as AI-generated, and then the author lightly revised the intro. They aren't evil for doing this. I just personally prefer reading things written by a human.

> I didn't get the same "AI wrote this",

The tells aren't always the same. For me LLMs have a certain indefatigable "bounciness" in their output that is impossible to miss. Everything has to be punchy. Everything shows the same level of (strangely elevated) excitement. At some point a human will do human things: put a little more detail here, vary their tone there, maybe lose the thread a bit and talk about something that's unrelated to the main flow. LLMs don't do any of those things–the writing is one speed from beginning to end. It's like riding a conveyor belt

> but I get a lot of people saying "AI wrote this" to stuff I definitely wrote by hand

I agree that there is a flip-side here where many people are eager to accuse AI usage for sometimes bizarre and facile reasons. And this is unfortunate, too. But it should illustrate the general frustration that many people are feeling about AI and its effects on social norms.

Hold my beer. I'm going to run Qwen on this 3rd-generation iPod... somewhere my partner can see

But this eroded over time. Nowadays both Mac and iOS are bloated pieces of crap that reek of design by committee. A lot of people blame Alan Dye (and they are probably right to do so) but there are other factors too. With Steve and Jony gone, they need someone who cares to step in and assert control once more

Technically, that's as "Memory Safe" as you can get!

cries in Factorio

plugs in knowledge bank LLM: ... I know kung fu.