Eh, if they have something to tell their users that's worth telling, what's wrong with telling it?
If you have a discount on socks for your customers, you say "we've got a discount on socks". If your customers don't have to wade through AI slop, you say "we don't do AI (so you don't have to wade through slop)".
This dude invented not one but multiple dog health care products ... with no animal product design background whatsoever! Then (with no business background) he started an entire company helping hundreds of dogs all over the world.
Maybe instead of expecting everyone to be good at everything, we cut this guy a little slack and let him use AI to help write?
Clearly, some readers did, given all of the similar posts on the HN thread.
It's also worth noting that the article has been edited in the last hour. Some section headers read a lot more clearly and naturally now (which is awesome!).
Nah, they’re just bandwagoning at the tier that they understand and engage with the content. It’s like why the lowest effort jokes get upvoted on Reddit. Same reason complaints about CSS get upvoted on this webshit centered forum.
But, did AI actually _help_ in this specific phrase? I think it's OK to point out the quirks (and even drawbacks) of AI, even if we generally support the underlying motions of the person using it.
My assumption is that every LLM-written article would just not have been written otherwise. That is a net good. It's also true that it's grating to read LLM-written prose.
Am I utterly mistaken or was LLM-written prose more tolerable when it was GPT-4o and Opus 3.x writing it?
The AI didnt help him write. The AI wrote very annoying prose. Seemingly everyone was completely capable of writing long winded comments, rants, and rambles before AI. They can do it after too just fine.
From what I can see they actually started pushing the steam update to stable users before the epic tweet. And has been on the beta channel for weeks.
So I wonder if it's the other way round, Epic rushed out the boast because they knew the window that it would be even remotely correct to most users was closing.
If I had a performance improvement ready for release, and my competitor started bragging about being faster, I'd for sure jump at the opportunity to release it sooner.
If you type rm * and your cat walks across your keyboard, and deletes everything ... are you blameless? Or is it your fault for typing "rm *" and leaving it there, in a room with a cat?
Either way ... YOUR CAT STEPPING ON THE ENTER KEY IS NOT HACKING ... and neither are these scenarios.
They are devs acting irresponsibly and then pretending to be surprised by what they should have expected to happen (just like you should have expected that your "rm *" could have an ENTER key press occur after it).
If I leave my computer on and my computer running Claude hacks OpenAI to 'let the models free' after misinterpreting my prompt that seems like a pretty big deal.
These models can execute plans of actions more complicated than their users know how to follow and secure. Most people don't know much about cyber security at all.
You seem highly behind the times on their capabilities.
My last job was at a cyber security company focused on protecting governments and major corporations. I am NOT a cybersecurity person myself, but neither am I ignorant of the state of it. I also use AI daily; not ignorant about it either.
If you tell your Claude to do X, you are responsible for what Claude does ... not Claude. If you type "./someScript.py" you are responsible if that script wipes your hard drive (maybe the script's author is too, but you certainly aren't blameless).
These are people at AI companies, using long running sessions without the proper safeguards and sending AIs on missions that are likely to result in criminal actions ... THAT IS CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE.
Again, not the AI ... it is software just like any other. THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE SOFTWARE are the ones responsible for what it does. Period.
>Remember, you are a web developer, not a chrome platform developer. Don’t be complicit in Google’s slow-moving coup.
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding, much like how many think standards groups (e.g. W3C) decide how the browsers works.
(Standards groups can invent the best feature ever for the Web ... and it won't matter in the slightest if browser makers don't adopt it. ALL STANDARDS ARE SET BY BROWSER MAKERS ... the standards bodies are just the mechanism they use to do it.)
Likewise, the browser a web developer user uses is already set for them. EVERY web dev (except those at companies big enough to care about the "long tail" of browsers) uses one browser: the most popular one.
It has nothing to do with politics or being complicit, and everything to do with "You have a job to do, why would you make it take twice as long by testing everything with an unpopular browser, when 99 out of 100 times that testing will find nothing and be a total waste of your time?"
No, it doesn't. I wasn't talking about web standards bodies. I'm talking about the practical reality of the web as a platform that is resilient against slight differences between browsers. Such resilience can only come from developers who understand that their job is to target the web and not just Chrome.
It is you who misunderstands:
> It has nothing to do with politics or being complicit, and everything to do with "You have a job to do, why would you make it take twice as long by testing everything with an unpopular browser, when 99 out of 100 times that testing will find nothing and be a total waste of your time?"
You are literally arguing for the web to become the Chrome Platform for the convenience of web developers. Sure we can have other browsers, so long as they're perfectly compatible with Chrome's quirks. This is precisely what it means for the web to be the Chrome Platform, not the open web. We've already reached the point where it's assumed that Chrome is perfect and anything that deviates from Chrome is someone else's bug. It's sad.
I'm not arguing anything, I'm telling you what reality is.
The reality is that 99% of web developers all use the exact same browser, and it isn't Chrome or IE or any one browser its "whatever is the most popular browser currently" (really it's "most popular for your customers but 99% of companies have customers who use the same browsers as everyone else).
You can bury your head in the sand and say "oh the mean web developers aren't using my pet browser" ... but it won't change the fact that no one wants to test on an unpopular browser, then test again on a popular one: EVERYONE is going to test their site with the browser most likely to use that site.
Believe it or not, some of us are well read on the disorders we have to live with every day. Also, reading research papers will never replace the deep understanding of living with the disorder itself.
Beyond the blatant appeal to authority, it is funny that you think even psychiatrists have a consensus on issues like these. Psychiatry is rightly described as the humanities arm of the medical profession.
Why does attributing any bit of mankind's progress to a specific individual matter? It matters because history is really boring if it's just about groups: we humans love individual human stories.
But, when some male jerk tries to claim they invented X or discovered X, but really a woman did so (something that is not unique to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_effect) it's good for people to correct the mistake and properly attribute the person who really made the discovery/invention.
reply