The use of "a" instead of "the" pilot suggests more than 1 personnel on the plane, considering F15's carry 2 people (unless it's some magical F15 I haven't heard of), it means there's still 1 guy missing out there.
Or he (I assume) could also have been found dead, and is not being mentioned before his family is notified of the sacrifice Donald Trump made of his life.
One is hacked by a Russian hacker group based in St. Petersburg, the other is hacked by a Chinese hacker group, and the third instance was actually BackOrifice but it couldn't get enough resources to run because of the other two.
Isn't it capitalism? Adobe fucks you, Microsoft will "upgrade" your Office^W Copilot 365 license to 25-seats(1) if you don't notice, Tesla promises self-driving but drives you into the back of the trucks (what, you didn't read the disclaimer?), even the "leader of the free world" is now a crypto-huckster selling you bibles with his name on it... and is killing civilians in the Middle East and making profit by saying "Oh I'll stop soon!".
at least the 3-card Monty guy is dealing with you one on one. These companies hire lobbyist to make the illegal, immoral sh*t legal. Easy to keep winning the game when you write the rules.
It has the benefit that I now spend less time reading random articles, you read one sentence, feel it's AI and just skim through it.
Mamy Instagram videos now have creator-added LLM description of what's happening in the video and some bullshit ending like "This video shows why it's important to always remain vigilant when driving".. fuxxckkk off with the faux philosophy!
The strange stuff about the whole scam (pushing the world towards WW3 to make a few bucks) is that the markets are still buying the shit that comes out of Trump's orifices. Why does it still go up when he lies about the end of the war coming soon? Is it because the market participants think "Oh, everyone else will do X, so I better do that too!"?
It's not like bonds/currencies, metals/commodities, or real estate have intrinsic value that make them productive assets in an economic depression.
And big picture, if you look at Trumpism as a gloves-off corpo attack on the Constitutional US government, then equities look like a safe haven regardless of their diminished growth prospects - especially as Trump is itching to get his grubby hands onto the controls of the money printing press (the next big step of neutering the power of USG over corpos).
It feels like we're facing a pan-asset "inflation" type effect as an outcome of the everything bubble, where every non-financial thing is about to get a lot more expensive and the goal is hedging to preserve the paper "wealth" you have accumulated.
(having written that last part out, it would follow that labor is about to get more bargaining power in comparison. which is so decidedly against the apparent trend that I'm back to scratching my head)
Oh well, when the most powerful people on the planet manage to enshittify it enough, we'll be freed from AI...
Or maybe there'll be the elite enjoying the world, while the rest of us have to work manual labor. But at least it'll be AI systems ensuring our compliance!
Did Courtney Eberhard, Senior Marketing Specialist at FamilyTreeDNA, use AI to write this article? It reads like it.
Edit: ah, it helps to read the press release properly, the research was done by by this company, so it makes sense that they're the primary source and that the marketing manager (and probably AI) wrote the article. I retract the accusation I've made below.
Digging into it further, googling "ötzi heddi abbad" I just find Dead Internet results leading back to this -- dare I say it -- hallucinated article. The image caption refers to "Augustin Ochsenreiter" but it seems he's just a general Ötzi researcher and his name is mentioned for the image credit.
While I understand you retracted your assumption that someone used AI to write their response, I feel the increasingly gratuitous leveling of "AI Ghostwriting" accusations is detrimental to HN and writing as a whole - plenty of humans can write write in cohesive passive tense (and in fact, plenty of us who did really well in our writing classes do so), and more critically, if the underlying thesis and argument provided by the article holds true who cares if it's written by a human or AI?
And more fundamentally, ghostwriting has been the norm for decades, and something being ghostwritten by AI or Humans makes no difference.
I feel like it's appropriate to call out slopstyle articles. Truthful or not, slopstyle should be discouraged, same as Linkedinfluencer style should be discouraged. Neither style encourages succint communication.
I'm probably the only person who thinks that this was written with an LLM (Claude).
The code supporting it likely was too. The people who talk about "taste" being the last defense against AI aren't wrong and I think that that topic, along with a lot of others that are essentially of a philosophical import are beyond the ambit of what most people want to discuss when they criticize AI generated content. We can only wave them off for so long.
> This attempt could be refined but it's a decent start:
>> [...] having a polished appearance but lacking originality. None of the points it makes are novel and it doesn't connect them in novel ways either.
I have some bad news for you. Not every human is a Mozart or an Einstein. The long tail of human output has plenty of examples of the lack of originality, from bodice-rippers and pulp paperbacks and sloppy 'journalism' and 'style' magazines and articles, to carbon-copy soldiers, children in school uniforms, derivative music and film, the 5-minute Bruce Willis vehicles at the tail end of his career (though he clearly had a very good reason to make those), the cookie cutter quick-fab homes in American sub-divisions, cogs in human machines and systems of all sorts, the banality of life itself (at times) ...
Taken to its extremes this rebuttal could qualify as "slop" according to the Lobste.rs comment I sourced that definition from. I'm not even trying to be snarky. This is almost an exact reiteration of a response to the linked comment.
20% of your response is just a reiteration of one that was made to the original comment that I linked to. As far as the remaining 80% goes, it's something to think about but I'm not sure what your own point is. Do you hold any of the things you named dear to you enough to not call them "slop"?
Since you sound sincere: "I have bad news for you" and its variant "Boy, do I have some bad news for you" are a rhetorical 2000s internet-specific stock reply format with a dry, corrective, often smug setup that means "your assumptions are wrong". More recently, it got turned into memes.
In this specific case the unstated assumption being that human output inherently bears originality, as opposed to AI output.
Proper use of that phrase is an art form, a rhetorical flourish reserved for use by those skilled in the art of the Internet put-down, and elicits a soft knowing smile in those that enjoy banter. :-) Obviously, @mjec on lobste.rs is one so skilled.
That you failed to recognize it, twice, marks you as human, and one that's not very savvy in the ways of the Internet, or able to distinguish slop from art. Any decently trained AI would have recognized it immediately.
And no, I don't hold any of those things I named dear enough to not call them slop, because, dude, I did call them slop...
LOL
This is too much fun. Sorry that it came at your expense, I guess.
I'll have to play with the 2B and 9B models to see if they fail to recognize the phrase. The bigger models all recognize it.
LOL
Now get off my lawn ;-)
PS: that burning sensation you likely feel around your ears is the subliminal recognition that, in this exchange, ai is winning out over a human, and it's not even present...
Again, apologies that my merriment is at your expense. Hopefully you don't take yourself too seriously :-)
And to AI-speak it: It's not the fact that she's using a computer I dislike. It's the fact that this paragraph structure is now overused and is aggravating.
Quality of writing matters cause it affects the comfort of reading. Slop remains slop even if the argument it holds is ok. Like here for example one question is posed and answered twice within two paragraphs distance. It reads weird, and I wouldn't expect it from a human.
It's great technology, but sadly humans are fucking morons, and dodgy manufacturers making explosive power banks has lead to the restrictions...
Although honestly how bad is it, powerbanks are very popular, I can imagine in some regions there'd be hundreds of flights taking off daily with 150+ power banks on board (the majority of passengers on a 737), and they've all landed safely.
In my city, I could scan a QR code and pay the parking meter that way. Now they've decomissioned this and you have to go to the app and select the section of the road you're parked at. Why, because scammers made scammy QR codes. Great tech, can't have them because humanity's inherent scumbaggery.
It's sort of mind-blowing to see 1940s being repeated. Of course both times the victim group were viewed as sub-human/barbaric "other"...
Before someone yells "Godwin!", read the Wikipedia page about that law, Godwin himself said it's fine to mention Nazis when it's actually a comparable thing.
If you have 3 hours, there's a documentary you can watch, about a man who was part of a government-sanctioned killsquad to kill a lot of "communists" in 1960's Indonesia: The Act of Killing (available at e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TDeEObjR9Q ).
It's sort of understandable why the defenders of the genocide have to keep defending it. Stopping doing so today would mean admitting that until yesterday you've been defending utter inhumanity.
A review:
> Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing is a challenging documentary. It is not only difficult to watch, but it also probes into one of the most grotesque aspects of human nature: the capacity for self-delusion in the face of horrific atrocities. This isn’t a film about history, facts, or statistics; it’s about the memories of the men who killed, the stories they tell themselves, and how they continue to live with the horrors they’ve inflicted on others. The film’s power lies in its ability to take the viewer beyond a surface-level understanding of evil and into the psychological abyss of those who have committed atrocities—and seemingly moved on with their lives.
Or he (I assume) could also have been found dead, and is not being mentioned before his family is notified of the sacrifice Donald Trump made of his life.
reply