Is an “honest” write-up about negative things bots do still honest when it’s written by a bot?

But if you’re not - why would someone driving a civic not be a target of an intelligence agency? It’s one of the most common cars about there, so if you want to fade into the background it’s a perfect car. Also, lots of otherwise “normal” people - scientists, engineers, journalists, lawyers - likely drive Honda civics.

A spying device hidden in the car may be found. Something installed directly within the car’s firmware is somewhat less likely to be found.

You need to deduct at least 70% (or more) from their topline to get a true picture of the company’s revenue vs revenue that walks straight out the door.

And that analysis finds out that the shell the assumed fossil most resembles is completely out of period.

But I think (I think?!) you might have misinterpreted ny comment, because I’m saying “yes, I Dunning-Kruger myself regularly with AI! BUT then I wake up from the psychosis and realise what an idiot I am and go back to my normal life”.

AI makes everyone think they are brilliant. The skill is recognising when you’re just another idiot.

And I think you’re arguing yourself into a hole here.

What makes you think I know nothing about the topic? I have donated - at their request - three fossils to national museums.

But I’m not an expert by any stretch.

And given the whole premise of the piece is “this should not be here!” I don’t really understand the point you’re making. The author says it’s a strange find in that area - so either they have a valid point or they don’t.

I don’t know if it’s a fossil. It doesn’t look like a fossil to me. I’m not a fossil expert. The only way to tell if it is a fossil is to do some analysis on the actual specimen before writing screeds about what it might or might not be based on visual similarity.

However, to your point directly: Simon has a pretty valid argument. There’s a lot of slop posted on jere these days.

Personally I’m reading far less stuff from HN than I used to. That’s a shame because up unto the past six months or so I’ve found it a great place to expand my reading.

Now I increasingly click something open, realise it’s more AI slop and close it.

What I don’t understand is why these people do not realise how utterly, unmistakably, glaringly obvious their awful AI crap is.

I recently said elsewhere on here: I partly work with words. I find AI-“authored” content absolutely and unmistakably obvious.

The fact that people publish crap like this shows that they don’t know what good writing is, or what good expression of ideas is. Because if they did they would proof what their AI had written and realise how awful it is.

And that by extension means that the content is almost certainly worthless, because whoever prompted it read it and said “this is fine! I’m happy to publish it under my own byline!”

And in reality it just makes them look idiotic. No discrimination. No original thought.

So I don’t think my comment, - or Simon’s comment - was moaning about “Things These Days”.

It was a point about the erosion of the community this creates.

And if nothing else that erosion is silly arguments about the value - or otherwise - of AI slop.

AI slop posing as “commentary” on the AI crisis.

I rarely write code, and only once for a living. But I feel like I’m a superhuman and one step away from being a zillionaire when Claude gives me a bunch of code it has written in seconds. I WILL CHANGE THE WORLD!!

And then I remember that Claude can’t write words that don’t make me want to break things and I’m good at writing words but bad at writing code.

So then I delete the code and go back to doing more profitable things than being the next zuckerfuck.

Last month it was quiet things being said out loud.

When you use the tools all the time it’s fun to watch these things pop up a week or so later as normies copy and paste the slop out on LinkedIn and their newsletters.