| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it wrong? The part about the crucibles is somewhat interesting, if true, as it reminded me of a passage in the Manhattan Project engineering story that was posted the other day. They thought the melting point of plutonium would be a lot higher than it turned out to be, so they commissioned a lot of exotic crucibles [1] that turned out to be unneeded. They were apparently developed at MIT with cerium sulfide, a compound I'd never heard of before. 1: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/an-engineering-histor... | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Is it wrong? No, but it's a summary of the original article without anything added. I agree with GP that it's very likely LLM generated from the article. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I see a few other posts by electric_muse that are LLM-suspicious, but it bugs me that the style is so much like my own writing. Only a matter of time until I'm the witch on trial, I suppose. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't really look at the writing style, as it's a very good way to fall for false positive. And I actually won't blame a non native speaker for editing their thoughts using an AI much more proficient in English than them. Instead I look how much actual information (be it anecdotes, personal opinion, different perspective, etc.) a comment contains. Here it's just a very straightforward TL;DR; of the original article, it contains no substance beyond that so I don't think anyone would bother write it (or at least they would likely advertise it as a TL;DR;). |
| |
| ▲ | nine_k 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A correct summary without anything added is a very valuable thing. I personally don't have the time to read every article, and highly value the scientific paper format, with an abstract given upfront. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 3 days ago | parent [-] | | A correct summary like this is what any LLM will give you for free so it's not that valuable anymore, but that would be OK if it was advertised as a TL;DR;, and not presented as if it was OP's personal take like it is right now. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | electric_muse 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s a mixture. But yeah, today I pushed the boundary further. A few days ago I flagged a piece someone else had written with ai. It has a specific cadence and some typical patterns. But many people seemed to buy it before I commented. So I’ve been running a bit of an experiment lately where I write posts and LLM-ify them in varying amounts to see if an LLM actually produce something more upvotable and when people start to notice. I started out just saying “rephrase this so it sounds tighter” and moved recently towards just jotting rough notes and saying “make an HN comment out of this” and then editing. Today was the most AI-influenced set of posts, and people clearly noticed, so that’s definitely the threshold. Fascinating. Check my post history to see the evolution. Using gpt-5. | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Please don't do this. HN is a community, not a laboratory. As a sibling commenter asked: [do you] consider whether or not the people you interact with here want to be experimented on? People have been doing “experiments” with trying to sneak LLM-generated content onto HN since at least 2020. It's not new or clever. Yes, sometimes it will slip through our defences. After a while the community figures out. We give a collective groan and eyeroll, kill all the comments, ban the account if it’s egregious, and move on. We have been asking the community not to publicly accuse commenters of posting generated comments, because sometimes the accusations are false and we think the negative consequences of false accusations outweigh the positive consequences of valid accusations. But if we're going to ask that of the community, we also have to be very insistent that people do not exploit the community’s trust with experiments or stunts like this. | |
| ▲ | serf 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | did you ever stop to consider whether or not the people you interact with here want to be experimented on, or whether or not it was right to betray the confidence of folks here and degrade the experience even further for people that come here to seek real human discourse? not a criticism, I just want to know whether or not it ever crossed your mind. | | |
| ▲ | electric_muse 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I thought a lot about this. I was super hesitant at first but thought that this might be the most accepting place of any. For the most part, my comments were getting tons of upvotes and replies and so I thought “wow this is furthering the conversation. I should keep going!” I wasn’t outsourcing the entire process after all. I moved from asking it to rephrase things I wrote (I’m sure plenty of people use grammarly and the like) to asking it to give me some drafts with a specific opinion and viewpoint, and then I would edit to my liking. Anyway, this totally blew up and now I regret it. But it was an interesting ride because it really opened some interesting questions about the fact that these were some of the comments I made that the community upvoted the most, which to me is a sign of contributing value. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | alephnerd 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Induction motors can be used instead Most of the automotive industry uses Electrically Excited Synchronous Motors (EESMs) as an alternative to NdFeB magnet motors not induction motors, but they have's taken off yet because investment in mass scale production only began 1-2 years ago. This will change over the next 2-3 years because BMW, JLR/Tata, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, and Renault Group have begun moving to EESMs. EU OEMs who have a major foothold in the EESM market like Valeo are lobbying 80% EU indigenization for automotive parts in the EU [0], and India is also started a fairly large industrial subsidy to mass produce EESM powertrains [1] and a number of the players like Sterling Gtake have gotten tech transfers from European vendors like AEM that started off as NatSec funded applications [2]. That said, I also haven't seen a same push for a domestic EESM supply chain in the US unlike the EU and India - GM vendor Niron Magnetics [2] is the only American manufacturer I know trying to manufacture EESMs domestically. That said, for a number of brownfield military applications, the migration away from NdFeB magnets cannot occur without essentially rendering entire product lines inoperable and unrepairable. This is why NiB magnet chains are viewed as extremely critical. [0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/valeo-... [1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-revs-up-alternate-... [1] - https://www.ncl.ac.uk/business-and-partnerships/case-studies... [2] - https://www.nironmagnetics.com/ | | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Sounds like a development of the slip ring synchronous motor (same thing mechanically as a car alternator) but with inductive power delivery to the rotor instead of slip rings. Quite cool if they can make it work! Basic slip ring motors would also work in EVs (though not as nicely). |
|
|
