The comment section was full of AI-generated edits to this image which exaggerated it or changed the setting in various creative ways - making his leg even longer, making his leg extend over a giant chasm, adding a bench behind him so he was performing a Bulgarian split squat. I giggled my way through the comments.

This form of humor - of being able to take human in-jokes and run with them - was not possible before artificial intelligence, and it was very funny! Memes are about to get so much more varied and funny as the effort requirement drops. We're nowhere near the effort ceiling in terms of making great memes, most people just simply do not have the time, resources or patience to actualise their mind's eye. It reminded me of exactly the kind of dumb joke and rehashing that made YTPs so special in the first place. I don't know if this is high art, but it is art, and I don't think YTPs were a particularly special form of comedy outside of our rose-tinted memories of childhood.

There's still the capacity for human labor and uniqueness to be embedded in AI-generated media - only the first breaths of low-quality algoslop lacked that. Expression and mimetics will change, and I think children born today will get to enjoy richer and funnier content than we did now that they are unshackled from GMod stop motion.

Media production is often laborious and unfun. I learned that the hard way the first time I whipped out the physgun in Garry's Mod and started trying to make something funny. That experience was absolutely buns and the consequence is I didn't get to make as many fun things to share and enjoy as I could have.

My suspicion is that the people leading the outrage from a creative perspective is people who were, by-and-large, struggling/failing to make it in a creative industry before AI, and this is the outlet for that pent up frustration.

The closest I've come to sympathising has been witnessing the death of the farmer's market under a sea of generic AI slop and Temu garbage. And while sad, that feels like more of a story about globalising supply chains than one about the death of creativity.

The pessimism of Blueskyism feels very alien to me.

irony

> Distill - deterministic context deduplication for LLMs. No LLM calls, no embeddings, no probabilistic heuristics. Pure algorithms that clean your context in ~12ms.

I simply do not believe that this is human-generated framing. Maybe you think it said something similar before. But I don't believe that is the case. I am left trying to work out what you meant through the words of something that is trying to interpret your meaning for you.

It is getting very hard to continue viewing HN as a place where I want to come and read content others have written when blog posts written largely with ChatGPT are constantly upvoted to the top.

It's not the co-writing process I have a problem with, it's that ChatGPT can turn a shower thought into a 10 minute essay. This whole post could have been four paragraphs. The introduction was clearly written by an intelligent and skilled human, and then by the second half there's "it's not X, it's Y" reframe slop every second sentence.

The writing is too good to be entirely LLM generated, but the prose is awful enough that I'm confident this was a "paste outline into chatgpt and it generates an essay" workflow.

Frustrating world. I'm lambasting OP, but I want him to write, but actually, and not via a lens that turns every cool thought into marketing sludge.

Now that you got some outside input, it's reframing it for you as an abstract philosophical/legal/moral concept, but the underlying problems are the same. The reason it's talking to you using high level abstract words like "concept" and "proposal" and "framework" now is because the process you just went through - the "step 1" - beat back its potential to frame the idea as a real model of the world. This may feel like just a different way to describe the same idea, but really it's the LLM pulling back from trying to ground the concept in the world at all.

If you're continuing to talk to the LLM about the idea, it's going to try and convince you that really this was a moral/theory of mind discovery and not a mathematical one all along. You're going to end up convinced of the importance and novelty of this idea in exactly the same way, but this time there are no pesky ideas like rigor or testability that could falsify it.

If you ask ChatGPT about this comment without this bit I'm writing at the end, it'll tell you that this is fair pushback, but really your work is still important because really you're not trying to write about engineering or philosophy directly, but rather something connecting these two or a new category entirely. It's important you don't fall for this because exaggerating the explanatory power of pattern recognition is how ChatGPT gets you. Patterns and ideas exist everywhere, and you should be able to identify those patterns and ideas, acknowledge them, and then move on. Getting stuck on trying to prove the greatness of a true but simple observation will lead you to the frustration you experienced today.

> The goal: replace vague legal and philosophical notions of “manipulation” with a concrete engineering variable. [...] formally define the metric

What's the conclusion? Is this a "concrete engineering paper"? Has anything been "formally proved"? From your link:

> The math is conceptual, not formal.

> This is serious, careful, and intellectually honest work, but it is not conventional science.

> The project would be strongest if positioned explicitly as foundational theory + open design pattern, rather than as something awaiting “validation.”

> it is valid as a design pattern or architectural disclosure, not as experimental systems research

Be careful before immediately dismissing this as just imprecise language or a translation issue. There's a reason I suggested this to you.

Hi author, this isn't personal, but I think your AI may be deceiving you into thinking you've made a breakthrough.