Thread

I'm the mom in that viral Giants clip. Let me tell you about my husband

609 points · 241 comments · minimaxir

criddell · 1790442586 · focus · HN ↗
She’s a great writer.
A lot of people owe this family an apology. Here’s a sampling of some of the vile comments left on Reddit.
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1wpll52/clip_of_a_woman_at_the_twins_vs_giants_game_goes/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1wpll52/clip_of_a_...
1. Tiberium · 1790442989 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. coherentpony · 1790443578 · focus · HN ↗
    I read it and didn’t get that impression.
    Perhaps you could endow your claim with some evidence.
  2. godwinson__4-8 · 1790443587 · focus · HN ↗
    Based on what?
  3. mindslight · 1790443596 · focus · HN ↗
    Even if so, this would seem to be a positive use of LLMs. Something traumatic happened, and she wants to put her perspective into the public dialog rather than continuing to be a passive subject of the social media industry's two minute hate. I know in such a position I myself would be at a loss for words, with the perfect being the enemy of the good enough.
  4. Wistar · 1790443626 · focus · HN ↗
    Hmm. Pangram AI detection says the piece is “100% human written.”
    randallsquared · 1790447739 · focus · HN ↗
    Really? A comment in another thread says Pangram says it's 100% AI. I just checked with the free plan, and it told me 29% AI. What I'm learning here is that Pangram may not be a reliable checker.
    Thing is, I also twigged it as heavily LLM written when I read it, so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Wistar · 1790448664 · focus · HN ↗
    I checked again with a longer sample—the first eight paragraphs—and, this time, Pangram said 61% human. Hmm. I think your twigging may be more accurate.
    senderista · 1790448757 · focus · HN ↗
    I got the vibe that maybe an LLM was used for editing but the stench wasn't overwhelming.
  5. physicalecon · 1790444130 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  6. grvdrm · 1790444184 · focus · HN ↗
    Amused by a claim about writing composition that uses “clearly mostly” back to back.
    Planktonne · 1790444734 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a legitimate usage of both words.
    RugnirViking · 1790448810 · focus · HN ↗
    there are higher levels of writing than "grammatically correct"...
    we don't dismiss claims of poorly written code with "but it compiles!"
    grvdrm · 1790520094 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed. You’re with me!
    c22 · 1790525642 · focus · HN ↗
    This is just the obviously sort of thing you gotta do to make sure your writing isn't mistaken for ai these days.
    grvdrm · 1790536518 · focus · HN ↗
    A gem of a point. Thank you.
  7. macintux · 1790445349 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't this story pretty much all about jumping to conclusions and pissing on people who you don't know?
  8. jryle70 · 1790447196 · focus · HN ↗
    In a way, this comment precisely demonstrates the kind of vitriol responses that the article talks about -- witch hunt without evidence, going with the trend, herd mentality.
    gfody · 1790450428 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.