| |
| ▲ | Nextgrid 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Overuse of bulleted lists, unnecessary sensationalism, sentences like "The requests flew. There was no WAF, no IP blocking, no CAPTCHA." and so on. It reeks of someone pasting some notes into a chat prompt and asking it to spruce it up for publication. | |
| ▲ | PKop 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pattern recognition skill issue then. It did to me. "The fallout" This flaw was critical. And other vibes. You know it when you see it, though it may be hard to define. | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You know it when you see it How do you know your perception is accurate? One of humanity's biggest weaknesses is trusting that kind of response. | | |
| ▲ | PKop 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Maybe just try having confidence in yourself. Trust your instincts. I'm not going to impugn my own abilities based on some purported flaw in an abstract amorphous blog called "humanity", whatever that is. A lot of individuals of distinction have many characteristics better than the average, why wouldn't I trust myself more than other people? Pattern recognition is a many millions of years evolved ability best exemplified in the "human" species by the way, so I basically disagree with your whole premise anyways. | | |
| ▲ | tempsaasexample 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The Brown killer was basically caught by a homeless man getting a bad vehicle about the future shooter. So I agree, trusting your gut is definitely a thing. | |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | People believe in witchcraft and lots of other things - including many horrible prejudices - just as confidently as you. There's a reason any scholarship, courts, medicine, and any other serious endeavors require objective evidence. Imagine that - doctors, who have seen everything, have years of study, treat all those people, still require objective evidence. Anyone in IT looks for objective evidence - timing, stepping through code, etc. Confidence doesn't correlate well with accuracy; in fact the more someone expresses your kind of confidence, the less I rely on them at all. What if you wrongfully accuse someone? Does that matter? Are you responsible for the consequences of what you do? | | |
| ▲ | PKop 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You turn your brain off and outsource your thinking to other people, because you're incapable of perceiving reality for yourself, is what you're telling me. Of course everyone is responsible for their accuracy and their errors, doesn't mean it's impossible to infer things based on observation experience and intuition. This is an evolved ability, but I do agree some people are better than others like most things. You're conflating a lot of things. Many prejudices are accurate and prudent, which craft is stupid, but so what? I'm not going to deny my perception on something that's correct just because some other idiot believes in magic; non sequitur. | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's really a bizarre argument. You are making evidence-free claims, based on nothing - including the things you say about me. It discards all of critical thought, empiricism, reasoning, philosophy, etc. .... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | verall 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's definitely AI dude | | |
| ▲ | mmooss 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Have you ever tested your accuracy? I think there are tests out there. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sallveburrpi 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is the AI slop version of “This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.” ? | | |
| |
| ▲ | tverbeure 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This incident is a stark reminder A stark reminder is a stark reminder about the existence of AI slop. You see the phrase a lot in social media comment spam. | |
| ▲ | delfinom 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's an emdash, no human being uses emdashes. | | |
| ▲ | dboreham 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Er...I've been using em—dashes since I read Knuth in the 1980s. | | |
|
|
