| ▲ | ltbarcly3 4 hours ago |
| > Two quick notes first. The impact I describe is hypothetical. It’s what an attacker could have done with this access, but luckily I found the bug instead, reported it, and never touched any customer data or PII. I am the last person to judge someone for using AI to help them write a blog post, but what I wonder is: Do people not read what the AI produces before putting their name on it, or is the AI writing style not obvious to some people, or do they just not care that it's obviously AI and bad style? |
|
| ▲ | t-writescode 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That.. looks like a normal sentence to me, and very probably one of the ones Microsoft required they add. Did you give the article a once-over beyond that? It’s one of the decidedly not-AI lines. |
| |
| ▲ | 0x_rs 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not a "normal" sentence and is quite clearly produced by an LLM, it's a typical Claudeism so probably that. The entire post is also flagged by Pangram, so OP is correct. | |
| ▲ | ltbarcly3 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Prefixing saying something with "Two quick notes first" is extremely common AI meta commentary. You may be right that it is something Microsoft insisted he put at the top, which would also explain the weird style. | | |
| ▲ | functionmouse 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | From where do you think AI learned that? | | |
| ▲ | ltbarcly3 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Learning a phrase from humans doesn’t prevent a model from overusing it or making it a recognizable stylistic habit. | |
| ▲ | vonneumannstan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Weird user preferences during RLHF. Also how we got bulleted lists and emojis everywhere. | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All AI semantic tendencies were “learned” from us. That doesn’t change anything. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | eviks 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All of the above, though mostly the last one. |
|
| ▲ | gosub100 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Explain why easily 40% of HN posts are about AI, and when people actually _use_ AI for this task, they are vilified for (allegedly) using it. |
| |
| ▲ | ltbarcly3 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I pasted the thread into ChatGPT and here is what it would like to tell you: The comment explicitly says, “I am the last person to judge someone for using AI to help them write a blog post.” The criticism is about the quality of the published prose and whether anyone reviewed it before putting their name on it. You can dispute whether that sentence is bad or whether it indicates AI authorship. But “why criticize unedited AI prose when HN talks about AI so much?” doesn’t identify a contradiction. Discussing a technology doesn’t imply endorsing every use of it, and criticizing its output isn’t the same as vilifying someone for using it. — GPT-6.1 Sol | |
| ▲ | bix6 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | He’s fine to use the AI for bug hunting but nobody wants to read AI’s bullshit slop and tone | | |
| ▲ | icantevenhold 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m as tired of slopped up text as the next person but the example OP gave really isn’t that bad | | |
|
|
