Yet another simple stupid idea inflated to a massive article with ai.
Wish this were realistic - I'd have enjoyed the read more.
Actually that’s probably the only way anyone would publish this without being embarrassed.
> The ... isn’t just ... . It’s ... .
I can't quite put my finger on it; obviously the "it's not this. It's that." is part of it, but even without the obvious tells that writing was AI-generated/improved, it's just so tiring to read?
Maybe a linguist can chime in why all these texts are so samey, cloying and annoying to read? Is it (just) the pacing?
I think I’ll just start flagging these. They’re just a new kind of spam.
Think about it. You wouldn't give someone crap for writing in broken English because there are many really smart people that are non English speakers. So why are we giving crap for people using AI to write better posts? If the idea is relevant, what's the point in criticizing the style?
A fair question would be "is the idea in the post actually the writer's or was it entirely done by AI"? However how can one actually tell if the idea, not the style is original? You can't. So it's pointless to be angry about style. Focus on the message.
This is a bozo who prompted the machine for a viral essay. He did not write anything. He does not know anything.
But I’ve spent enough time with these tools and coaching people on writing over the years to recognize the extremely low signal to noise ratio and prompted style instructions. I’m equally confident the gentleman in my spam folder is not a Nigerian prince.
Also very funny to use an AI to write this kind of article. I w wonder how they feel about their job writing blog posts shrinking.
Precisely. So why are our masters still panicking about population decline and hyping the need for immigration?
Sleepwalking into Idiocracy x Waterworld while dreaming of Star Trek...
"Sarah was relieved. She thought she could focus on high-value synthesis work. She’d take the agent’s output and refine it, add strategic insights, make it client-ready."
Then they propose a long winded solution which is essentially the same exact thing but uses the magical term "orchestrate" a few times to make it sound different.
It seemed to come down to the old 'just work better , faster, cheaper' , but that is dialed up to 11 now.
I realize the irony, of course, that this article is AI-generated but it provoked something close to an epiphany for me even so.
This claim has always been BS in my experience.
No it's like 60% as good, but management and other "AI for brains" people can't see it.
The suggestion does sound a bit like 'work faster'.
Don't just work faster, but yes, work faster.
The fundamental problem is not unlike what happened in the industrial revolution: we are suddenly much more productive as a society, how do we distribute that productivity?
A sane society would use a tool like the monetary supply to do so: money is a public good (it exists because we say it does) and thus should be managed for the public good. People should be able to work less while having a higher living standard, which is easily achievable given our almost comical productivity.
Because we've privatized money creation in the form of credit monopolies, this obvious mechanism isn't available, so it seems like we will end up with either short term crushing poverty followed by bloody revolution or the techno-feudalist utopia-for-the-few.
Lately, there have many controversial articles (with a lot of comments) that are most likely written by AI and I regret wasting my time on. Sigh, is there a hacker news replacement with higher quality articles that I don't know about? I imagine all platforms are inundated with slop now.
direwolf20•1h ago
Or get a physical job AI can't do. But all of those are commodities and pay shit wages.
sevenzero•1h ago
eptcyka•1h ago
nemomarx•1h ago
DJBunnies•1h ago
unyttigfjelltol•1h ago