(but yeah, it's not quite right, and is especially jarring in the nice, clean, blown up pixels in the top example)

I really, really want to believe it's bot warfare. But there is this running theme of HN posters who think because something is _legal_, or because you can point at it historically and go "acktually it's always been like this", it's therefore _moral_ and we should not ever push back on the excesses of these awful fucking companies.

> or ignore them

If you ignore the bad thing then the bad thing is good. What the fuck are you talking about?

I think people will be able to detect the lowest-user-effort version of LLM text pretty reliably after a while (ie what you describe; many people have a good sense of LLM clues). But there's probably a *ton* of LLM text out there where some of the instructions given were "throw a few errors in", "don't use bullet points or em dashes", "don't do the `it's not this, it's that` thing" going undetected.

And then those changes will get built into ChatGPT's main instructions, and in a few months people will start to pick up on other indicators, and then slightly smarter/more motivated users will give new instructions to hide their LLM usage... (or everyone stops caring, which is an outcome I find hard to wrap my head around)

Preach. Every time I read people doing this weird LARP on this website of "you have so much more leverage, great time to be a founder" I want to put my head through the drywall.

This one's interesting to me. For a lot of my career, the act of writing the PR is the last sanity check that surfaces any weirdness or my own misgivings about my choices. Sometimes there would be code that felt natural when I was writing it and getting the feature working, and maybe that code survived my own personal round of code review... but having to write about it in plain english for the benefit of someone doing review with less context was a useful spot to do some self-reflection.

People who LARP about digesting mathematical proofs and Arxiv papers for funsies.

There are more forms of entertainment and people have diversified how they spend their leisure time. I don't think that it necessarily follows that it's an inferior platform unless your only metric is "more people is more good".

>Because everyone alive today has the same perspective, and none of us have experienced a wide breadth of anything

Completely bonkers statement.

>I don’t know if she’s ever talked publicly about religion or democracy or climate change or immigration, but I could tell you exactly what she thinks about these things anyway. So why would you bother reading what she thinks about Rome? The answers are just as predictable

I mean, I could take a stab at what a dork named Roman Helmet Guy is going to think too.

I agree: but to me that's at least something kind of interesting and evocative, even if it's a trainwreck. (In fact, it might even be better when it's a trainwreck). A nice break from LLM's this-not-that. This one's not so bad IMO.

EDIT: Nevermind, it's still having issues

EDIT 2: Now showing as "We are investigating a rise in request failures on several services" on https://www.githubstatus.com/

I don't mean to be a dick, but no, the question was what is a reasonable cause to bash someone if it's not disliking what they do. I don't know if these weird Socratic replies are meant to be thoughtful but they read as dismissive and condescending.

But hey, I can also play stupid games!

> The question is, why do you feel the need to bash them?

Why do you feel the need to defend them? (I answer this question less flippantly below.)

> Do you feel the need to say ugly things to your grocery store because they don’t actively have the goods you want?

Is not stocking garbanzo beans censorship? Why do you think this is equivalent?

> Do you feel the need to bash the coders of YouTube because they have ads or censor content?

Depends what Youtube is advertising. Depends what they're censoring.

> Are they your enemy because they hire a certain type of person?

Who'd they hire?

...

There is a difference between my grocery store stocking or not stocking something and having problems with a multi-national trillion dollar company that has wedged itself itself into most people's daily lives and has a history of censoring content to curry favour with authoritarians.

I sympathize with the folks who are working there trying to change things for the better, and I sympathize with the people who are legitimately stuck for whatever reason (don't know a lot about visas to the US, but those are probably a good reason). I also think they're tough enough to take it when they dunked on, and have the reading comprehension to realize that when people are critical of Facebook employees, there's context where it absolutely makes sense. Being a Facebook employee is not an identity, it's just a job. Facebook has pivoted to censoring queer content at a time when queer people are being marginalized after years of gains. Most of my ire is directed at the executives and management, but yeah, if you work at Facebook knowing what they do, you're not getting a pass.

I don't think we should hate them or show them hatred. I don't think that if you're working at a company that's suppressing someone's way of life you're somehow above criticism or contempt.

As far as I can tell accounts were frozen, not seized. Do you have a reference for donor accounts being seized?

ref: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...