claiir

Seems hard to square your claim that “today the USA is also probably leading the decline in mass literacy” with the PISA [1] research.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_St...

Yea, laches in equity, right?

yea my thought exactly. especially if the lawsuit expenses are on contingency, what is there to lose by filing?

I tend to agree with the post, but narrowly on the hook:

> Do you want to listen to music? Just open a Spotify playlist and let the algorithm figure out what you like. Please ignore the AI slop they will insert in between real songs to avoid paying royalties to real artists.

To be honest, my Spotify recommendation algorithm complaint is about the exact opposite, that it’s too conservative in what it suggests. Sometimes I feel stuck in a musical “echo chamber.”

I hear from this post that recommendation algorithms are too broad, but it seems from policymakers the bigger complaint is again the opposite (“echo chambers” and “rabbit holes.”) Not sure which is more compelling, but they are surely not entirely orthogonal features.

“not as writing but as output.”

I'm not sure what the primary signatories want, exactly. "No mathematics" safeguards added to frontier models, like the "no cybersecurity or bio" ones that currently ship? That seems like a bleak future. Protectionism like tariffs.

> The launch is checked rather than trusted.

Damn even Nvidia is putting out fully Claude-written articles.

From the post, “and the incentive structures we have built are the experimental apparatus.” That’s a Claude sentence.

Was almost going to praise this article for not overtly sounding like Claude, but then I read this: > and the incentive structures we have built are the experimental apparatus.

So close!

AI-written page, and it gets worse as it goes on:

> The modes are the load-bearing piece:

lol

Aren’t all the big chrome vulnerabilities type confusion?

They’re ZDR and the OAI ones aren’t

> Astra improved a term in a bound on these gaps that had remained unchanged for more than 80 years. We’re sharing the proofs and abridged chain of thought and verification materials for both results.

Looks like they listened to Terry Tao’s request for CoT in his talk on LLM use in mathematics?

Kind of sad how all these technical blogs just reek of Claude text these days. Hard read when it’s obviously padded by an LLM…

Since it's only discounted on the standard "OpenAI," non-ZDR route (old pricing on Azure), I'm guessing a lot of users won't see this benefit? Since a lot of users enable a global "ZDR-only" toggle on OR

Yea the "When the fact lives outside the model, a wrong answer has an address" sentence seems aggressively AI written. Saw that and my senses went off.

> Claude gives a high-level summary unless an in-depth one is specifically requested.

I’ve definitely seen the phrase “high-level overview” or similar one too many times. Perhaps that’s from the prompt.

Neat. Curious to see if RL pans out. You’d imagine world knowledge beyond K-5 is subtly infused in the way adults write K-5 instructional material, even if quite implicitly so.

> Motor Power 250W (Rated) / 500W (Peak)

A 4090's TDP!

This text on this page is so aggressively LLM-written (Claude) I am struggling to understand what I am even looking at.

> And you can read it for free here: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:std:iso:24495:-1:ed-1:v1:en

Actually, only the first few pages are available there (introductions, Sections 1-3.8). The meat of the document, Section 5 ("Guidelines") is completely absent.

See:

> Only informative sections of standards are publicly available. To view the full content, you will need to purchase the standard by clicking on the "Buy" button.

The Gorton machines being initially developed by a lens manufacturer made a lot of sense given the 1920s brochure material the author included earlier. That material (unlike the later versions presented) focused on the machine's ability to do circular engravings (exactly the speciality the lens text presumably needed)

That’s because it is. https://github.com/dylanreed/dylan.blog/blob/main/docs/BLOG-...

Saw quite a few a Claude-isms, like: “It’s git commits, minus..”

The blog is AI-created—the commits all have “Claude” as a co-author. [1] The “BLOG-WRITING-GUIDE.md” used to write this post gives it away. [2]

And the product the blog is advertising (“VellumProof”)—that website is 100% Claude too. [3]

Perhaps this is some social experiment? Don’t really get it.

[1]: https://github.com/dylanreed/dylan.blog/commit/a7327d0968692...

[2]: https://github.com/dylanreed/dylan.blog/blob/main/docs/BLOG-...

[3]: https://vellumproof.com

The job req has "Recursive Self-Improvement" as one of the "area of expertise" checkboxes lol

Very cool

The site itself is really leaning into the “made with Fable” aesthetic

Yea perhaps more generally, the LLMs might model the average HN comment (sample mean) quite well. But, they fail to model the sample variance at all.

Bot account. This sounded like LLM text. I went through all your other comments, and of your thousands of comments written in 35 days, every other one is also similarly written by LLM.

Some superficial comment usually commenting on the title, always lowercase, always load-bearing and honest.

Nice. But, is there a less “conversationally” written piece on the subject? In any event, this stuck with me: > Most music theory books are like medieval medical textbooks: they contain unjustified superstition, non-reasoning, and funny symbols glorified by Latin phrases