goekjclo

Yeah its interesting reading this and right afterwards looking at this 297 point AI slop submission. Fucks sake. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49541888

AI slop, "297 points", this fucking site is a joke.

This is true, and doesn't even get into low-effort generation (and the 'perturbing') slightly disguised and then no one sees it at all.

AI discource is irrevocably fucked due to posts like these 2023-tier opinions.

I fully agree. https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-closure-of-the-inter... is a great read, when it comes to social bubbles and misinformation

Man the cope on HN is something else. Neighbour, 99.9(9)% of professional mathematicians don't go around creating new mathematics. The goalposts have been moved so far that we're now at "AI isn't Grothendieck yet".

"ideas are cheap" was one of the most succesful psyops of all time, so unbelievably wrong

ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini have already been filtered. https://x.com/arctotherium42/status/2037324942069342679

Your comment is also potentially being downvoted with AI. Crazy times we live in.

Cannot help but think Claude team are busy adding gimmicky side features instead of doing 'real' RSI and bugfixing.

Free open models are still capable of flooding art communities with slop images, which is worth sympathy, and is not included in your "Which highlights that the issue is with the hyper scalers, the rhetoric, the corporations, the marketing, etc etc".

Makes sense.

It's not weird. Top of HN is worthless as a barometer at this point, people downvote for calling out AI slop.

> The timing of these log spikes lined up with drops in user-facing traffic, which makes sense. Our data plane heavily uses memcached to keep load off our main Scylla database, and if we're exhausting ports, that's a huge problem.

I expect this is common.

Description of the article: The incentive structure for scientists and science writers is towards hype. More exaggeration often means more clicks or attention/funding dollars.

The nature of scientific research, where millions of papers are produced every year and any one result is rarely meaningful on its own doesn't lend itself well to being news. Every study has flaws, but when its a news story, you need two things: something new, and something that's a story. It needing to be new means focusing on whatever was just published, before its known if it has a big impact on subsequent research. And needing to be a story means limitations detract from the narrative and are left out.

Debunkers play double duty, confronting misinformation but also acting as a counterbalance to the incentives to hype things up. When you might be publicly called out, by colleagues or other science writers, there's a constraint on how far the exaggeration goes -- assuming you care about your reputation.

I don't know if they can be any more 'cautious' for Mythos 2...

the "under the hood uses EFS" part is the most interesting bit here

Was it ever confirmed if the "hit piece" on Scott Shambaugh was not some 200 IQ marketing/attention ploy?

in some attempt to maximize "engagement" metrics it's sacrificing intimacy and convenience that made it viable for the "bedtime" or "commute" listener in the first place.

If I have to keep my screen active to hear the content, it's really not a podcast anymore, it's like a hostage situation for my battery life lol