somewhere, are videos of TTD testing of wings on passenger aircraft, and other video of the two guys doing final assembly of the wing fasteners on an airbus, nasa has nothing on them. and even humble cessena trainers, where "nobody has pulled the wings off one yet" all that, and there are still many many ways for things to go horribly wrong...iceing, mega down drafts, mega UP drafts, that just grab an aircraft and take it on a 5000'+ min elevator ride, or side drafts, put you up, strait up on one wing, ask me how I know. more, but for sure what we get next is just that, more weather

it's a video? https://media.newyorker.com/clips/69960546794abe05fcc0ae2e/m...

Yeah if you had AI rewrite things a few times and copy and paste paragraphs from multiple drafts together this is definitely something that could happen.

Not arguing, it's just interesting I read the opposite, it felt human to me, and I usually have a good spidey sense here. Maybe it's a combo of handwritten and LLM polishing? Or just a case of a good writer, whose typical output was the training input for most of these models. Good writing, novels and articles and short stories, were the high value training sets.

"For a moment, the plane quivered around them like a greyhound straining on a leash." - I don't think a LLM would write this.

But hell, maybe I'm just being naive. I think we're past the point of ambiguity, we just can't know anymore. Which feels poignant to me.

It isn't only LLMs that use rhetorical constructs like these, humans use them too.

People point to the basic structure of "It's not X, it's Y" as the hallmark of AI, but I find it's more the incongruity between X and Y, especially when figures of speech (invariably strained) are involved[1]. That first quote reads like a real interaction that's been tightened up for print, but the second, the 'farm equipment' <> 'life-support system', does smell like AI, even though the article implies it's from an in-person conversation.

1. These are all from a single 850-word op-ed I saw the other day: "Presidents do not usually lose power because of a single speech. They lose power when a speech reveals something structural." "But the most important part of the speech was not the applause lines. It was the compression." "Markets can rise. But voters do not live inside charts. They live inside grocery stores and mortgage payments." "The issue is not whether a statistic was stretched. The issue is that the presidency becomes reactive instead of agenda-setting." "That friction is not theoretical — it is baked into the constitutional design." "Trump’s address was not a pivot to persuasion — it was a doubling down on confrontation as strategy." "They are not just another campaign cycle. They are leverage."

You're reversing causality here. LLMs train on massive bodies of human-generated content. Constructs like the ones mentioned are an entirely unremarkable staple of long-form text content produced for audiences who are accustomed to consuming long-form text content.

I was referring to the really obvious animation (or lack of) at the top of the page.

But yeah once again it seemed to go over the heads of the oblivious around here...