‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

ChatGPT now knows what you do on other websites via ad collector

764 points · 395 comments · lmbbuchodi

  1. duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pangram.com&#x2F;history&#x2F;c3ad864f-2a50-4785-a0ef-71f289ec003f?ucc=t8c6BkzVOh8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pangram.com&#x2F;history&#x2F;c3ad864f-2a50-4785-a0ef-71f2...

    why not use your own words? If you are gonna ai generate this blog, just post the prompts instead.

    1. abhis3798 · · focus · HN ↗
      How is this adding to the discussion? The post in itself is quite informative.
      1. duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
        Do you constantly want to be reading ai-generated content on this site? If so, why not just stay on chatgpt.com and ask it to generate what hackernews.com would look like today? It&#x27;s adding to the discussion because I feel like the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.
        1. nzealand · · focus · HN ↗
          &gt; the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.

          I seriously doubt that.

          First, the author documented a substantial effort (testing, emails, references to documentation.)

          Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not.

          &gt; Broken sentences that a model wouldn&#x27;t produce. &quot;The value is while you are on ChatGPT and tied to your ChatGPT account&quot; is missing a word. &quot;Loading that code, sends __obi to OpenAI&quot; has a comma splitting subject from verb. &quot;By the virtue of loading the tag the identifier is disclosed&quot; is non-idiomatic. LLMs are fluent to a fault; these are the fingerprints of a fast human writer, possibly a non-native English speaker.

          Third, I read it. Whilst it is not well written, it is succinct. It is novel. It has a few detailed references. It lacks many of the hallmarks of AI. It makes a number of novel yet falsifiable claims.

          I challenge you to come up with a blog post with these qualities that can be created in under 15 minutes via AI.

          While I commend you on actually using an AI tool to validate your assumption, rather than simply hurling AI slop accusations based purely on vibes, I do think you and your AI tool are likely incorrect.

          1. eventualcomp · · focus · HN ↗
            &gt; created in under 15 minutes

            This is an artificial constraint that does not serve the reader. Where did the 15 minute constraint come from?

            1. nzealand · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.

              How long do you estimate it took him to read the article?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.