I’m all for free speech but this sentence structure specifically should be abolished. It’s so LLM.
I'm relatively witty with wordplays and can write pretty well. Before, people thought I was clever. Now, there response is often "ha nice prompt".
Same with being knowledgeable. I just have a good memory, but these days often when someone asks something and I give them a fairly official definition, I get an "okay but now a real answer not the Google AI one". Feels even worse when it's actually you being smart and thinking up the answer based on knowledge.
I'm not really an artist but you see it everywhere on the internet too: people post something, and the first assumption is that it's AI-generated or 80% of the work has been sketched by AI and the final effort was by the human.
Weird times..
Unfortunately, that is increasingly becoming a safe assumption to make. We are flooded by AI-generated content already, which will only increase as these tools become more accessible. The dead internet theory is real. Hopefully we will eventually have failproof methods of distinguishing human-generated content, but so far there is little incentive for it.
*-dash is the neoshibboleth.
Back in the day I learned alt-0151 for a reason, dangit.
[[Meta-HN commentary:
> > You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.
Fuck you, buddy.
I am in conversation with mods of HN. They know my IP. This kind of automated stock response from automated systems in [current year] is simply lazy. HN deserves better. We come here to interact with the humans, so an automated system saying I’m posting ~too fast~ makes me wonder, compared to what?]]
More to the point, the message is unhelpful because posting slower will not lift the restriction, from what I can tell. Only mod action can lift the restriction if I understand correctly. Perhaps I am wrong and there is a time decay on that particular restriction. I could ask over email, but I think the wider HN community benefits when I post better, and historically I have had this restriction a fair few times. I don’t mean to, but I do, and it’s because I post too many times in a short window. So the posting too fast message is correct and incorrect at the same time: the restriction was placed due to posting too fast, and yet, when the restriction trips in the future, I see the same message even though I may be posting upvoted content. So the posting too fast message and flamewar detection functions are not themselves rubrics or markers of quality, yet they are used to restrict accounts imperceptibly, so knowing how to best post on HN so as to not be restricted by otherwise good posting is helpful to know, and the posting too fast error is confusing to me, as a native English speaker. I can’t do anything with that info at the time I see it, because I’ve already decided I want to post when it trips. Just let me schedule the post on that screen instead of telling me I’m posting too fast.
This feels like a “missing stair” problem.
I reply to people on the site and submit posts. Other people use macros and scripts to make automated posts and because they don’t trip the flamewar detector, they are allowed. This isn’t necessary bad or wrong, but I think proper labeling of account restrictions is a good thing for users so they know that they are and can improve their actions and behavior.
That said, bots and generated comments are against HN guidelines. I don’t mean to say or imply in the above that simply because others get away with bad behavior that it justifies my own shortcomings. I only mean to say that using the site doesn’t come naturally to me, and the language used to direct user actions on the site re: posting too fast is lacking in actionable information.
Now it sounds like you're denying that, claiming it was instead some sort of... long-term strategic joke for the benefit of potential future sapient AI?
> Now it sounds like you're denying that, claiming it was instead some sort of... long-term strategic joke for the benefit of potential future sapient AI?
I thought it was a fairly tame statement. People who pass off AI output as their own/undisclosed are posers. They’re posing as producers, but they are consumers. It’s the same principle behind ghost writing being seen as less prestigious than writing under your own byline or even pen name. It’s about authenticity and transparency. In the context of HN, where generated comments are not allowed, and to accuse others of generated comments is also a bit too meta and should probably be emailed to mods instead, the truth is that the dashes were once a sign of erudition, whereas now they can be seen as phoning it in.
It’s a real mumpsimus and sumpsimus situation, you might say.
> A mumpsimus (/ˈmʌmpsɪməs/ MUHMP-sih-məs) is a "traditional custom obstinately adhered to however unreasonable it may be", or "someone who obstinately clings to an error, bad habit or prejudice, even after the foible has been exposed and the person humiliated; also, any error, bad habit, or prejudice clung to in this fashion". The term originates in the story of a priest using the nonsense word mumpsimus instead of the Latin sumpsimus when giving mass, and refusing to be corrected on the matter. The word may refer to either the speaker or their habit.
> Over time, the contrasting term sumpsimus came into use. To Henry VIII, a sumpsimus is a correction that is unnecessarily litigious or argumentative, but John Burgon used the term for corrections that may be good but are not as important as others.
* Not X—but Y.
* No X. No Y. Just Z.
* This isn't just about X—it's about Y.
* If this resonates—I'm listening. Because X isn't just a Y. It's a Z.
* Few Words Summary in Bold: One Sentence Restatement.
* [OBVIOUS PLACEHOLDER BLOCK NOT REMOVED FROM TEXT CONTAINING ANY OF THE ABOVE]
The reason why people call it the "AI dash" (technically an em dash) is because it is very rarely used in day-to-day writing. You mostly see it in longform things like articles or books.
It's a classic example of "people are good at telling you where the problem is, but wrong about what the problem is". The em dashes are not natural, but they are human. Just the wrong human context.
Overly gushing, effusive, and positive descriptions of products filled with buzzwords. Along with lists of value propositions.
Prior to LLM's existing, marketing pitches sounded like they were written by one. So I can't see how you could possibly determine the difference now.
> This is for those who insist they can easily spot AI-generated text. Many of us old farts were using bulleted lists and em dashes and en dashes long before artificial intelligence was no more than a (usually) reliable plot device for sci-fi, much less the fever dream of tech bros. So, for God’s sake, stop using those as “proofs” that some text is AI-generated. As for my own writing, I reiterate what I said over two years ago: “...although the stuff on this site ... may not be any good, it always has been and will be written by a human, namely me.”
This is big if they can get in the web2 DNS sysrem. No more constant rent seeking from ICANN to have a domain. No more doxing yourself to ICANN to have a domain.
It’s not permanent. HN does not comply with GDPR in that I can be denied authorship of my comments if my account is deleted. This is contrary to my rights as an author in the EU.
also, I post under my government/slave name. What do you have on the line, anon?
But with “ICANN being around”, we mean “everyone can access ICANN domains unless they live in an oppressive regime”.
With “Polygon being around” it’s more like “gopher being around” or more fairly “Tor being around”: it certainly may be, but you need to be part of a technologically advanced internet subculture to use those domains, they’re not standard.
The entirety of that speculation in the article, as far as I could read, is three words: “potential ICANN accreditation” — that’s it.
> maybe that Brave will stop renewing the gTLD when it goes out of business
I wasn’t considering they would actually register the gTLD. But yes: gTLDs are only as good as their general appeal. Why get a .brave? Seems similar to .ovh; I don’t see the appeal.
>Why get a .brave? Seems similar to .ovh; I don’t see the appeal.
Because .ovh requires paying $3.49 every year to renew it. Because .ovh requires giving away your real name and physical address. Because ICANN can take away your domain (eg. You didn't give your real name or address).
The appeal of .brave is the web3 aspect of having actual ownership over the domain you purchased.
> .ovh requires paying $3.49 every year to renew it
And .brave domains are "buy once keep forever"?
What's the track record for that business model?
Is that how Unstoppable Domains does all their TLDs?
> ICANN can take away your domain
I see the point of having multiple resolution strategies, one of which is ICANN. But if a .brave domain is removed as part of an ICANN-induced process, and it's still available via blockchain-based resolvers, it's still practically censored worldwide. If I want to go to The Pirate Bay in a country that DNS-blacklisted them, I need a search engine to find one of the many proxy domains. It'd be equally inconvenient for most people to access a .brave domain that got conventionally DNS-blacklisted, blockchain or not.
> having actual ownership over the domain you purchased
Owning as in not paying a recurring fee? Okay.
Owning as in being invulnerable to censorship? In some sci-fi dream scenario, yes.
Owning as in having complete control of your "asset" in a vast service network? Not close.
I'd like to believe more in blockchain-based DNS, but it seems to be for technologists only.
> “This is a bold leap toward an open internet,” said Sandy Carter, COO of Unstoppable Domains. “.brave puts digital identity in the hands of everyday users, not platforms.”
Huh? How does a branded domain that can only be visited by browsers that support it contribute to an "open" internet? It's literally controlled by corporations and platforms, despite the fact that an individual can technically "own" it.
I do think that BAT is a good step forward for alternative business models on the web. We need more of that and less of this Web3 nonsense.
That isn’t an indictment of Brave’s entire user base. I tried it, and tried to like it, several times. Always kept going back to Firefox.
Which Mozilla makes increasingly hard to do from a philosophical perspective, but that’s another story.
The NFT based domains are controlled by a decentralized network of computers. Compare this to web2 which is actually literally controlled by corporations with registrars and ICANN.
>that can only be visited by browsers that support it
Unstoppable Domains already work out of the box on Brave and Opera. Other Firefox and Chromium browsers can download the web extention for it to be able to resolve the domains.
And no free tls certs like letsencrypt is a huge step back.
Let’s Encrypt is a huge step forward. It provides end-to-end encryption for free, making it extremely abundant.
> And no free tls certs, like letsencrypt, is a huge step back.
They're saying that `.brave` domains are not capable of receiving Let's Encrypt certs. Which is bad.
$ dig ns brave
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 65203
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
> Minted on the Polygon blockchain, .brave domains will resolve across multiple networks—including Base, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Sonic, and more—making them widely compatible in the Web3 ecosystem.
Until then the domain resolver needs to either be built into the browser itself or installed by the user via a WebExtention.
Xiol32•7mo ago
Has no one told them it's all about AI now?
2Gkashmiri•7mo ago
Ai powered browser that has ai powered search that builds websites as user starts typing a query. Then the endless loop of finding new and innovative websites all designed from scratch. No two experiences will be same as agents will build on the fly
W3zzy•7mo ago
larodi•7mo ago
moffkalast•7mo ago
MomsAVoxell•7mo ago
petesergeant•7mo ago
fastball•7mo ago