ossa-ma

Glad we're moving in this direction, I've also got a tool that I use to determine if writing is AI using common tropes and reconstruct the OG prompt from it: https://tropes.fyi/aidr

Evidently there is such little real human content and engagement on these platforms yet how does the big number keep going up? Genuine question.

Do we need a way to audit usage stats in addition to financial numbers?

Do you think it should be more forgiving? I've tried to calibrate it so that one or two matches don't flag you, but repeated patterns stack up.

Yes, a positive from this is those with authenticity and taste will shine. Self-expression will be a form of resistance and we'll see a lot less homogenisation across things like writing, ui/ux, animation, individual websites, blogs.

Who knows maybe the old, scattered, personable, decentralised internet will come back - things like MySpace, geocities, sites like this (a lost art): https://www.cameronsworld.net/

Also taste comes from your ability to steer a model instead of having it steer you. e.g. a model suggests a basic pill button, you push back and curse it for its blandness and use it to design something new and novel.

I agree with the risks. However the primary goal of the site is educational not accusatory. I mostly want people to be able to recognise these patterns.

The WIP features measure breadth and density of these tropes, and each trope has frequency thresholds. Also I don't use AI to identify AI writing to avoid accusatory hallucinations.

I do appreciate the feedback though and will take it into consideration.

Absolutely vibe coded, I'm sure I disclosed it somewhere on the site. As much as I hate using AI for creative endeavours I have to agree that it excels as nextjs/vercel/quick projects like this. I was mostly focused on the curation of the tropes and examples.

Believe me I've had to adjust my writing a lot to avoid these tells, even academics I know are second guessing everything they've ever been taught. It's quite sad but I think it will result in a more personable internet as people try to distinguish themselves from the bots.

Sorry to hijack this thread to promote but I believe it's for a good and relevant cause: directly identifying and calling out AI writing.

I was literally just working on a directory of the most common tropes/tics/structures that LLMs use in their writing and thought it would be relevant to post here: https://tropes.fyi/

Very much inspired by Wikipedia's own efforts to curb AI contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

Lmk if you find it useful, will likely ShowHN it once polished.

> The value of human thinking is going down.

Wrong. Creativity, innovation, intuition, taste - all forms of thought solely inherent to humans, all going up.

This is not either of those. This is the equivalent of a eulogy to a passion and a craft. Using an LLM to write it: entire sections, headers, sentences - is an insult to the craft.

The post in the same vain, "We mourn our craft", did a much better job at this communicating the point without the AI influence.

The irony of these "My craft is dead" posts is that they consistently, heavily leverage AI for their writing. So you're crying about losing one craft to AI while using AI to kill another. It's disingenuous. And yes it is so damn obvious.

Why don't you take a more proactive role in AI safety and alignment? I think that community would suit you better than some of the AI-maximalists/accelerationists here.

I do agree with some of your points, AI may result in a techno-feudalist world and yes as a direct result of "taking humans out of the equation." The solution isn't to be a luddite as you may suggest, it's to take a more proactive role in steering these models.

With all due respect to the author, this is a lot of words for not much substance. Rehashing the same thoughts everyone already thinks but not being bold enough to make a concrete prediction.

This is the time for bold predictions, you’ve just told us we’re in a crucible moment yet you end the article passively….

Yes the detachment is very evidently in the room. Nobody, literally nobody, goes on social media with the intention of interacting with an AI agent.

Social media is a human context with human experience, perspective, emotion and relationships. No matter how respectful or "boundary-aware" an agent is it is PERFORMING human-ness not experiencing it.

Even if Penny discloses she is AI, her presence in human conversations is deceptive. That is why people were outraged (on a more open platform like bluesky too, imagine if it was X). Ultimately it should not exist in human social spaces.

I'm certain the author would not be happy if their agent was unknowingly sandboxed and forced to only interact with other agents. They only keep this going because it feeds off of other humans.

The entire framing is "how do I extract maximum value from candidates" - sorting people into "covetable senior talent" vs "almost replaceable juniors." There's zero consideration from a "lead" and a "mentor" on what the engineer actually gets out of this arrangement.

"Agents push humans up the org chart" - I wrote about this from a human angle instead of "great, now I need fewer people and the ones I keep better be obsessed.":

https://ossama.is/blog/disparity

The entire post reads like a sorting algo for humans, there is value in his suggestions but it's ridiculously cutthroat. Not to mention out of touch, suggesting a broke junior fresh out of college drops $4000 on a NVIDIA supercomputer to differentiate themselves from the competition?? I guess it's a reflection of the market.

Add Andrej Karpathy to the ignore list.

> Your daughter has taken a job at Blackstone? My condolences.

LMAO. One of the best articles I've read on financialization, author is very opinionated but backs it up with evidence. Very hard hitting,

What does someone that works at Google, on Gemini in particular, have to gain by promoting Claude?

Not being cynical just curious, isn't there a direct conflict of interest here?

I haven't seen any examples of that.

Over the past few months mentions of AI in job applications have gone from "Comfortable using AI assisted programming - Cursor, Windsurf" to "Proficient in agentic development" and even mentions of "Claude code" in the desired skills sections. Yet the salary range has remained the exact same.

Companies are literally expecting junior/mid level devs to have management skills (for those even hiring juniors). They expect you to come in and perform on the level of a lead architect - not just understand the codebase but the data, the integrations, build pipelines to ingest the entire companies documentation into your agentic platform of choice, then begin delegating to your subordinates (agents). Does this responsibility shift not warrant an immediate compensation shift?

> "75% of enterprise workers say AI helped them do tasks they couldn’t do before."

> "At OpenAI alone, something new ships roughly every three days, and that pace is getting faster."

- We're seeing all these productivity improvements and it seems as though devs/"workers" are being forced to output so much more, are they now being paid proportionally for this output? Enterprise workers now have to move at the pace of their agents and manage essentially 3-4 workers at all times (we've seen this in dev work). Where are the salary bumps to reflect this?

- Why do AI companies struggle to make their products visually distinct OpenAI Frontier looks the exact same as OpenAI Codex App which looks the exact same as GPT

- OpenAI going for the agent management market share (Dust, n8n, crewai)

Brilliant take.

Competition nowadays is so intense and fine-grained. Every new innovation or exploration is eventually folded into the existing exploits especially in monopolistic markets. Pricing models don’t change, revenue streams neither, consumer rarely benefits from these optimisation efforts, all leads to greater profit margins by any means.

I'm not an economist so can someone explain whether this stat is significant:

> a sustained increase of 1.0 percentage point per year for the next ten years would return US productivity growth to rates that prevailed in the late 1990s and early 2000s

What can it be compared to? Is it on the same level of productivity growth as computers? The internet? Sliced bread?

These are economic studies on AI's impact on productivity, jobs, wages, global inequality. It's important to UNDERSTAND who benefits from technology and who gets left behind. Even putting the positive impacts of a study like this aside - this kinda due diligence is critical for them to understand developing markets and how to reach them.

This looks super promising and useful for frontend dev work. Gonna start using it immediately and see how effective it is compared to taking screenshots and pasting them in cc/antigravity.

Man everything about this launch is super clean, from the conciseness to the interactivity. I'm glazing but WOW. Well done to the team.

One feature I'd love is a toggle to lock the input to the bottom of the terminal. It's a big inconvenience to have to scroll up and down between the chat and the input when responding to changes.

How is it a “fascinating learning exercise” when the intention is to run the model in a closed loop with zero transparency. Running a black box in a black box to learn? What signals are you even listening to to determine whether your context engineering is good or whether the quality has improved aside from a brief glimpse at the final product. So essentially every time I want to test a prompt I waste $100 on Claude and have it an entire project for me?

I’m all for AI and it’s evident that the future of AI is more transparency (MLOPs, tracing, mech interp, AI safety) not less.

So it took the author 6 months and several 1-to-1s with the creator to get value from this. As in he literally spent more time promoting it than he did using it.

And it all ends with the grift of all grifts: promoting a crypto token in a nonchalant 'hey whats this??!!??' way...

I meant super bullish from an outsiders point of view, but I do agree that the projections from within the investors circle are likely multiples of that.

I’m the author but not the poster. I didn’t change the title. Maybe the mods did?

The title came to me as an epiphany too haha, shame to see it get changed.

Even if they're at the ARPU of Twitter that's $18-20 (will take them a while to reach it imo). At 800M WAU that's up to $16B in additional revenue.

This is assuming they don't build the vertical stack at all which is unlikely given their highly competent product team.

OpenAI hit 800M weekly average users and communication to OpenAI investors from this week state:

> "Both our Weekly Active User (WAU) and Daily Active User (DAU) figures continue to produce all-time-highs (Jan 14 was the highest, Jan 13 was the second highest, etc.)"

This does not indicate that they're losing users, at all...