As someone learning guitar and looks at a lot of tutorials, 99% of the time it’s presented is the other way around, so the way it’s presented here is rather confusing to me.
Let me guess, you saw the `–` and thought "Clearly no human uses the em dash. It must all be AI".
I looked over the website and their github page and saw no indication of AI usage. I'm not saying it wasn't used, but unless you have actual evidence, then please point it out.
That’s an en-dash – and I use those myself. (I’ve experimented with em-dashes—brefly—but it doesn’t look good to my eye in English.)
It’s all by the vibes, I don’t have any concrete proof. FWIW, the comment seems at least hand-edited, so maybe it’s just this “the [A] is the [B]” trope that has triggered me. If the rest of it is readable, then I apologize, but still: that’s a bad title, please don’t use this – unless you’re writing a LinkedIn post.
Not unlike how in the trades, a tee is T-shaped, a wye is Y-shaped, a delta is Δ-shaped. Spelled-out letters aren't always geometric metaphors, but it's a thing.
Then you've got the first syllable of Ω (omega) being a homophone of Ohm, for what that's worth. From there we have ℧ (mho) for conductance... It's all quite clever. But I digress; I'll get back to emceeing and deejaying, cueing these elpees after a quick pee, okay?
Different fonts use different lengths (sometimes en dash is the width of an uppercase “N” instead of lowercase, sometimes it’s half of the em dash which itself is `1em` which may or may not equal the width of the “M”...) But it’s a good way to remember that indeed, yeah!
After enough time spent reading LLM speak, I’ve found its phrasing and particularities subconsciously work into the way I write as well, entirely by hand.
It’s not always AI. It could be a human ;) I really despise LLM-written writing too; but I think it’s nice to be not super paranoid about it.
For me (not the OP) I see the patterns 'The X is the Y', 'Every X is a Y' (both of which are there) and llm-sense tingles. Add in Not A, B, C or Z and I'm increasingly convinced it's LLM generated text.
> It's also a concise and accurate description of the service.
If it was a clever expression that does get the idea across, I would be okay with it. “The API is the UI” is of similar form and I love it. It’s simple, catchy, and it does convey a meaning: designing an API is just designing a UI for developers.
“The URL is the app” makes literally no sense without additional context? I’m not sure this is a “concise and accurate description of the service”. I did take a guess [1] and I was correct, but that was after I’ve seen the examples.
> “The URL is the app” makes literally no sense without additional context?
Yes exactly - it's one of those sentences that only makes sense to people who already know what it was intended to mean, because they know how it's intended to be parsed without having to puzzle over it. For the rest of us, it's pretty meaningless.
Regarding the LLMism, I didn't click on this submission when I saw it on HN last night, because I'm sick of seeing "The X is the Y", and an LLMish title tends to imply yet another piece of vibecoded slop.
My man, that web design is absolutely pure Claude.
But hey that’s ok, the app is a good idea and works well, I have no issue with that.
Clearly the person making it knows how to structure a web app and make it usable and it shows it’s not just slop.
This is good use of AI coding
This isn't human writing. This is blustering, bloviated Claudespeak we have seen a thousand times over. Try Opus 5 and its ilk sometime and maybe you'll see it too.
The URL is the whole display: no accounts, no login, no backend.
Nothing else: no lists, tables, links, quotes, images or rules.
Underscores inside words are left alone, as in standard Markdown, so names like Home_Guest_5G, snake_case or [email protected] show exactly as typed. Only an underscore at a word boundary starts or ends emphasis.
Code is shown exactly as typed. Nothing inside backticks is treated as formatting, a slide break, {countdown} or an escape, which makes it the easy way to show passwords and codes with symbols in them. A code span has to open and close on the same line. Browsers may write a typed backtick as %60 in the address bar; both forms work.
All fonts ship with the site, each next to its license file. A font is only downloaded, from this site, when a display uses it.
Screen wake: with wake=on (the default) the viewer asks the browser to keep the screen on. It asks again whenever the tab becomes visible. Browsers without support ignore it.
The viewer can be embedded anywhere (OBS, dashboards); the editor and docs can't. HSTS is left to the TLS-terminating reverse proxy. The app reads all state from the URL fragment, so / serves every display. /editor and /docs are their own files (editor.html, docs.html); anything else is a real 404.
img-src stays open because displays show images from any host. Inline styles are needed for the runtime @font-face rules and style attributes. A snippet, so 404 responses get these headers too.
Exercises the canonical URLs, social cards and sitemap, which are only built when SITE_URL is set. The smoke test reads it too.
Don't get me started on the docstrings and code comments.
"Does the GPL specify that the user has to change the name when it's forked? "
- GPL is defines copyright permissions for the software code: copying, modifying, and redistributing.
- Trademark protection controls use of a name, logo, slogan, or branding.
“Notepad++” is a protected trademark, so a fork is allowed to use the GPL-covered source code any way it wants, but it can not use the trademark Notepad++ in a way that suggests it is the original project or is endorsed by it.
It would be like someone forking GnuCash from GPL code and calling then it "Quicken for Linux." The source code can be forked, but the Intuit trademark prevents someone from using the name Quicken because it could confuse users.
Your comment makes the copyright/trademark split very clear, thanks! But doesn't the existence and enforcement of the trademark put conditions on the code fork that are incompatible with the GPL? If I'm GPLing my code, the license says you can copy it and redistribute it, including all the strings and graphical assets covered under the license. It doesn't generally carve out stuff that's trademarked as not covered by the license. I can go to the Linux tree right now, fork a copy ("Linux" strings and all), and distribute it on my web site, and be legally in the clear. Same is true for any other GPL project out there.
In this case, the issues under dispute are the cases where the trademark was used outside of the GPL-covered code.
Specifically the port author using the Notepad++ name and logo on their website, in addition to the photo and bio of the original Notepad++ author, in a way that could mislead others to think that this was part of the original Notepad++ project.
Hosting a copy of the GPL'd Linux code, represented as such, and making a website claiming to represent Linux or the Linux Foundation with Linus's face and name on it are different things.
Their modified kernel tarball, yes. The idea is if you create a forked version that instead is malware, that intercepts everything that happens on the computer and sends it off to an adversary, that trademark protections allow the original author of the non-malicious software to say you can't call it by the name that I'm using for my product because you've changed it and it's malicious now.
Trademark law is the most reasonable leg of the intellectual property triad, in my opinion.
No, don't think so. But he can force you to call it "Carrot" in all marketing materials. Although you have to state it's a modification of "Linux" because of the GPL :)
The biggest problem is fans. They want to re-experience what they had when they first saw it, then get mad when the movies don't live up to their past experience. I was 7 when Star Wars came out. I had all the toys. I saw the movie a dozen times. It was an experience. As an adult, when I watch to again, I think “wow, this is really not good.” The special effects hold up , but the acting, the dialog, the pacing is all “meh”. When i compare it to the new movies, it’s the same. They are just not good.
And of course Disney wants to recapture the money bonanza that was generated by the original trilogy, but if they do anything that angers the fans, it get boycotted. If they try to stick with the original patterns, it gets called a remake. They are in a lose/lose situation.
Ultimately the fans need to let the nostalgia go and let the current generation build their own favorite movies instead of being told this or that franchise is the best.
I too realised that the films just aren't very good on re-watching them as an adult. The new films are not good in a different way though.
There was never even an attempt at a cohesive story, let alone a single vision for the sequels. It was given to different writers and directors who all had free reign for their projects and took them in different directions. They weren't just "not good", they were a mess.
Funny, the deeper I get into film the more I respect how much the original trilogy does really well. Especially the first two, Jedi’s got some “I have a story I want to tell a certain way but am stuck with more characters than I need and refuse to budge on either front” issues in the script, among other script issues (some giving us a preview of problems that would really come to the front in the prequels)
I thought the pacing for Asoka was particularly glacial. I get they were going with a thoughtful/slow burn but there was soooo much empty staring into space, landscape shots, filler content walking through the highlands with nothing happening, etc. I think they should have gotten Thrawn in the mix by episode 3!
Lots of these franchise-connected series are flabby as hell. Netflix’s marvel series were almost all very bad about this, but so are most of the Disney Marvel series. On the Star Wars side, whatever positive qualities they may exhibit, Asoka and the Kenobi show both could have used large cuts. Even the relatively-speaking excellent Andor often doesn’t make effective use of its time.
I’m not sure what it is about the economics of this form of the medium that causes that to happen.
What constitutes “at edited”. If I throw a block of text in to an ai see if it makes sense — say a response to a post — and fold the suggestions in, is that “ai edited”?
If you look at what you wrote and can't identify what rules you've broken, how are you able to validate that the AI output doesn't change the meaning of what you wrote?
Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”.
Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote?
>Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”.
That's fair.
>Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote?
I think what I wanted to get at is more like this:
1. I think that they may be part of the meaning
2. I think that people would be primed to accept changes even if they change the meaning
3. I suspected that it would always correct something and wouldn't just say LGTM even if the input was fine
To check, and at the risk of this being hypocritical, I asked for a grammar correction on part of your post that I thought had no mistakes, and both in context and isolation, it corrected "spat out" to "produced." Now, this isn't a huge deal, but it is a loss of the connotation of "spat out," which is the phrasing you chose.
I think grammatical errors are low-cost, and changes in meaning and intent are high-cost, so with 2. above, running it through an LLM risks more loss than it gains.
I suspect those relative costs would be very different for someone who's not me, though. My English writing ability is much higher than my Spanish writing ability, so in some alternate universe where Hacker News was Spanish-only instead of English-only, grammatical errors would add up to be a cumulatively-higher cost than a possible change in meaning/intent. I wouldn't have the requisite knowledge to know the difference in connotation between “produjo” v. “escupió” v. the myriad other verbs Kagi Translate is suggesting to me at the moment, whereas I'd probably have a lot of cases of not just bad grammar, but outright nonsensical word choices — like Peggy Hill in a Mexican courtroom (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7QCvykBXik), except with the added torment of being actually self-aware of my linguistic ineptitude.
(On that tangential note, though, I do appreciate that Kagi Translate provides multiple translations and attempts to explain their differences in connotation such that I can pick whichever one most closely matches my intent; if other LLM-assisted writing tools did that then that'd render a lot of this problem moot.)
You're absolutely right! It's not the people correcting their Grammer that are the motivation for this rule, it's the people abusing these tools and ruining every online discussion with cookie-cutter comments.
In all seriousness, if you use some tool to make sure you're using the right "there", noone will mind. Just don't generate another boring predictable comment and everything will be ok
Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.
It can catch things that I might miss or might be misinterpreted. I sometime miss simple things, like like repeated words, that an AI point out. Is a spell checker considered "AI"? Is Grammerly? Okay, maybe Grammerly from 5 years ago as opposed to today? If I'm typing on my phone and it pops up the next suggested word, is that AI edited?
And no, I don't have to reply to a post, but when I think it's a bad policy, should I just accept it without discussion? And who determines the "experts/insiders" and which voices should be allowed?
Yes, these are MY questions and feelings too. In the past, if I just HINTED at asking these kinds of questions, I was downvoted into oblivion (in other accounts. I have to say THAT specifically because some people here dive in to my account and get super anal about my age, my previous comments, my moniker, ad nauseum)
>Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.
As Isaac Asimov pointed out[0]:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
This thread runs through many cultures and isn't just a problem on the Internet, although the Internet certainly has accelerated/worsened the problem. And it has created a distrust of experts which (as has been obvious for a long time) has made us, as a whole, dumber and less informed.
I recommend The Death of Expertise[1] by Tom Nichols for a sane and reasonable treatment of this issue. If books aren't your thing, Nichols did a book talk[2] which lays out the main points he makes in the book. During that talk, he also gives the best definition of disinformation I've heard yet.
Again, the question is who blesses the expert? There’s a difference in having a voice and your voice being taken seriously.
If someone posts a link on a a new laptop, who should respond? I am not an expert on the current laptop market, but I have options about it. Maybe my English is not the best so I run through an AI to clean it up of ambiguities or wrong wording. Maybe I say “I like to take my laptop from behind” when I meant “I lift my laptop from the back”. An AI could point out this type of error.
The sequel series was one of my favorite sets of books. It’s markedly different from Rendezvous, but I found them an enjoyable read. It was contrived at points, but the series had my favorite ending for a character.
There is a concept of “the burden or knowledge”, in that doctors know the worst thing that could happen, so they recommend the most cautious approach. My son had stomach pain one time when he was young. We took him to urgent care because it was a stomach ache. The doctor there said we needed to go to the ER because it could be an appendicitis. So we trucked to the ER. Close to $2000 later he was diagnosed with idiopathic stomach pain and told to wait it out at home.
So when I read “they then compared the platform’s recommendations with the doctors’ assessments” and see a mismatch, I wonder if it’s because human doctors are overly cautious or that the AI was wrong.
But that all pales in what could be the actual issue. I can’t read the original study, but if it use the USA, it’s understandable why people are turning to AI for Health advice. Healthcare is painfully expensive here. Even a simple trip to the ER (e.g. a $2000 stomach ache) is beyond a lot of people’s ability to spend. That’s just a reality.
With that in mind, the real questions “should I do nothing about my symptoms because I can’t afford healthcare or should I at least ask AI knowing it could be wrong”.
I feel the same way about using the Internet or books to code. I'd rather just have the source code so that I'm not dependent on anything other then my own brain.
I bought the first edition when it came out. I was just 3 years into my SW development career and it provided a lot of good advise. I bought the second edition and enjoyed it, but the first edition had a special place in my heart.
Is your complaint that it has errors? I mean look at what it can do. This is a freaking computer generating things from scratch based on a prompt. Two years ago, technology like this was so much worse and could only generate basic images and videos. Now it can generate visuals all from the text someone puts in.
Anyone, literally anyone, can use it (eventually) to generate incredible scenes. Imagine the person who comes up with a short film about an epic battle between griffins and aliens...Or a simple story of a boy walking in the woods with their dog...Or a story of a first kiss. Previously people were limited to what they had at hand. They couldn't produce a video because it was too costly. Now they can craft a video to meet their vision.
Well, yes? There's a reason why everything that was produced with these tools so far is garbage: because no one actually caring about their art would accept these things. Art is a deliberate thing, it takes effort. These tools are fine for company training videos and TikToks. Of course a few years ago this was science fiction. They are immensely impressive from a technical perspective. Two things can be true.
