Do you happen to be Filipino, by chance?

No. People don't speak like drunk linguinist on anonymous online forum. That's not "Perfectly normal rhetorical habits".

It's either AI-assisted or someone desperatelly trying to impress "unknown people" with their non-existent intellect.

Yesterday in a meeting I said "here's the thing" and I hate that I can't say that anymore without feeling self conscious. This was on on a call too!

Sigh. I want my damn em dash back. I had the Mac key combo memorized back when the phrase "AI winter" was coined. Now everyone thinks it's AI slop.

The cringe part is when a real CEO says that in a speech.

Well, but what matters... matters. We can't let AI style disgust stop us from explicitly saying what we think matters and why!

FWIW, I thought it was human written. Pangram also said that it's 100% human written.

More likely, they're all wrong on this accusation. A bit concerning to see how many of them are throwing out a false positive like this. Makes me wonder how many of them are falling for actual AI traps in the real world. :)

I am actually with you here. Such a system probably needs to be battle tested in a specific domain of business to see where the deficiencies at this stage are.

Problem is, no matter how many sub-agents you break the LLM into it's still stochastic parrots all the way down. I've seen no evidence that compartmentalised harnesses can reach solutions that a monolithic harnesses cannot, so I'm thinking the compartmentalisation is just an excuse to throw more tokens into the token furnace - it doesn't unlock a step change in capability. If there is evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

There have been some successful attempts to do science like this (https://github.com/AstroPilot-AI/Denario). Denario generated 1k+ "solutions" on its way to winning the FAIR Universe challenge, and they all had to be fed through a fitness function of some kind to assess them. It also got stuck on a local maximum and had to be kicked in the ass by a human to get it off that.

When writing software, that fitness function is relatively closed (when I run it, does it do what I want?). With something as open-ended as managing a business... might as well roll dice, IMO.

My belief is that 20's LLMs have a lot in common with 90's GAs: the more clearly we can define "success" for a given task (the fitness function) the more successful they can be. Open-ended problems are somewhat beyond them right now, and, I suspect, forever.

(The comment that's currently at the top of the discussion, about making an "AI Boss" that remembered everything about the company, and fed the user three tasks a day? That's not an AI Boss, that's an AI Assistant with different framing.)

I read the line and thought it was AI, and then saw the username and figured it wouldn't be. I find my writing being influenced by LLM patterns as well, because that's basically all the writing that exists these days. I don't like how it erodes my own voice because I keep reading the writings of this one single author all day, every day.

Well, you mentioned Gas Town — that deserves an immediate reflexive downvote :P

I actually upvoted your post. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it, but I was interested to see more discussion about it, and that felt worthy of an upvote.

As for the reaction against the idea, I see it from two angles. Is the standard corporate hierarchy / architecture really the optimal organization principle for AI? Or is that just a skeuomorphism to make this project seem more serious than it really is? Maybe Yegge did us a favor by mapping to Mayors & Polecats, forcing people to question if it really is the correct organizational hierarchy?

The other angle is heresy here - HN is full of employees now. There is little incentive for employees to be interested in what a C-suite does, and we see that with the comments about CEOs needing to be six foot and walk impressively. Employees have no interest in AI organization principles that optimize them away and highlights their obsolescence. I am surprised there hasn't been more discussion about how this specific project optimizes away the C-suite humans instead - I would have thought that could have had some appeal to employees, at least until those people realized it makes employees a swarm that works for AI leadership.

As for AI organization, the organizational mapping needs to be productive, not affectation or cargo-culting. That's not peripheral — that's load-bearing. Especially in a corporation model, you can find the organization layers only create busywork with lots of unnecessary middle managers. You don't want your AI C-suite swarm burning tokens on endless meetings about what should be in the upcoming meeting... especially not at Fable API pricing.

It’s not about the LLM usage. It was such a dumb construction:

> <totally vague statement>. This matters.

Like, just because you say something matters does not make it true. Explain your case and then make predictions about the implications of it.

The entire thing was a vague post. Just “this matters” and “pay attention”. It’s trying to create a sense of FOMO but not spending any effort to explain why we should care.

The site used to not be under constant assault of low effort LLM submissions and low effort LLM comments. That people start getting cranky about that is just normal.

I like how you have to constantly use the LLMs in order to understand their speech patterns enough to consciously reject them.

Not in the slightest. I didn't touch the voting functionality and tried to be as nice as possible. I saw an opportunity to make somebody's life better for reasons it didn't seem they were aware of, since their speech seemed similar enough to certain AI idioms that I thought it would be demonized, and the fact that they wrote it anyway suggests they didn't know.

As I'm looking at it right now, there might be some nuance I'm missing in how HN works, but the post doesn't seem to be greyed out or anything, suggesting that if it is being downvoted then the upvotes are counterbalancing sufficiently.

> banning speech patterns

AI is prevalent and often bad. Society is reacting quickly but maybe not quickly enough. Blanket speech "bans" are part of that. Is that bad? Eh. It's not ideal. It's to be expected though. I work with the society I'm given, not the one I should have.

It’s the whole internet, it’s not an HN problem. The AI industry is little by little invading and destroying every space where humans gather, removing everything that made genuine human interactions interesting and worthwhile.

(Also, don’t take HN votes too seriously, being downvoted doesn’t say much)

I mean on the one hand it is annoying because everybody has speech patterns, I like to say "I mean" and "on the one hand" a lot. On the other hand it seems a sort of self-protective recoil, nobody wants to spend a lot of time talking to an AI. Our jobs and society already make us spend way too much time and effort doing that!

On the other hand: so, people throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is a problem, but not sure if it's as big a problem in the old days when you threw out the baby with the bathwater and it was only one tub of bathwater, because in the present time it's 2000 tubs of bathwater, and the baby is drowning anyway.

I say this as a guy whose editor is complaining an article I'm collaborating on, about how the continual whining about AI tends to have a lot of false positives and is anyway annoying, is taking too long.

This site has had speech pattern bans built into it's software, aka "anti click bait" algorithms, for basically ever.

Above is just AI slop. There is a good reason to be critical