dalmo3

vp + sv seems to work very well, when I tried it. And oxfmt supports svelte now too!

Yes, like filtering out shorts.

/s

I agree with your sentiment from the perspective of the asker.

But if I'm the askee, I honestly don't know how to navigate those waters yet.

If someone asks me for help and I can find, through AI, a thread to explore, but I don't have time to explore it myself, should I not share?

Do I say "Have you tried X?", where X is the thing the LLM suggested? Should I pretend that I did not ask the LLM?

In the past, I could find some source and send them the link, and I wouldn't assume the person had exhausted the entire Google index. Sending a link isn't the same as LMGTFY.

Analogously, while "Claude says X" does sound as rude as lmgtfy, disclosing that your suggestion was found via llm is more akin to linking to a source, or "take this with a grain of salt".

It's order vs chaos, and LLMs are on the side of chaos.

It's so blatant that it's hard to call it unintended.

Beyond the Singularity, we reach the Nullarity.

> reduction of our overall workforce in Q4 by fewer than 4,000 jobs

Interesting use of fewer.

If your hair is on fire, you don't ask how hot.

Damn, I got the paper stack wet with all that ocean water. Guess I'm starting again from scratch...

Do they also say you're wrong, then proceed to "prove it" by pasting more AI slop that they don't understand?

The first time that happened, I had the courtesy to point out why the slop was incorrect... I don't know what that did for my social capital. I fear/suspect people are getting attached to their pet AI to the point of taking personal offence when called out.

While you're technically correct, I found that a simple "give me the strongest arguments for and against this, cite your sources" works wonders.

Classic gamblers fallacy!

Being the devil's advocate, it sounds like no one involved see any value in that exchange, therefore they don't care.

In that sense AI slop is a symptom, not a disease. But perhaps also a catalyst.

I really wonder if there is a sort of silver lining here, and in the long term low value activities will be filtered out of society. Though that borders on the AI maximalist view which I don't fully agree with.

Of course the glaring question is what value even is.

Isn't that exactly what IKEA does?

Don't worry, it's only in the HN bubble that adding a 500ms round trip to open a damn menu is acceptable and commended.

Augmented Virtuality?

As if that was a bad thing in 2026!

I hereby propose the Turquoise Trolley Problem (TTP):

If you say the trolley is blue, it goes straight, where there's a baby in the tracks. If the trolley is green, two grandmas die.

Ah, yes, 2001 but on land.

I assumed the author was one of those HN haters and was filtering by referrer. Now I'm curious.

At this rate Lee Child must have already secretly invented AGI.

AI or not, I liked this bit:

> Averages lie about the tails, and a person who gets a 15 cm bust error doesn’t care that the mean is 4 cm.

A variation of that sentence should be mandatory in every scientific paper.

That's a poor analogy because practicing an instrument is a single-player game.

Unless you mean you can practice socialisation at the mirror, or that you're willing to practice scales or solfege in public.

Ohh they finally ship to New Zealand. It's a shame they wouldn't last year, and I ended up with a Lenovo :/

The new UI is literally opt-in. Nothing changed for me.

> I'm familiar with the newer carousel CSS/JS stuff but it's kind of clunky

I think you've just answered yourself why.

Browsers are the most used applications on the planet. They have one chance to get an API right ("don't break the web"). They iterate on a new API for years. When they finally launch it, devs call it "clunky".

Until you take a baby to the vaccine clinic, the nurse googles which vaccine to give at his age, and blindly trusts the highlighted AI snippet at the top.

Not a fictitious example.

Apparently 75% of the world's population believe in some kind of god. 60% is a low number as far as fantasy beliefs go.

Are you sure the script is actually testing the gameplay? Given it can see the entire source code of the game.

Is it not safe to assume that all* publicly available prior work is in the training data?

Then you could just prompt it to propose options with pros and cons etc.

* Bar extremely new stuff from after the cutoff