In my opinion using an AI system to judge an AI system is perpetuating slop.
If you read the article and thought it was superficial, then say so. Constructive criticism is helpful for others, including the author. But simply copying and pasting from LLMs (including Pangram) is not much better than the the alleged slop you're implying in OP's submission.
More specifically, I read the article and felt it was a bit shallow, but still appropriate quick intro to Dr. Gruber and his work at Project CETI. A better link would be to Project CETI [1] directly.
I've seen a talk by Dr. Gruber and briefly spoke with him, and was mind-blown by what they're trying to accomplish. If they continue making progress, may be a decade or two away from achieving inter-species communication. Just think about it for a minute: if we manage to communicate with whales (or any other non-human species for that matter), we'd have massive philosophical, ethical, and even legal implications.
> using an AI system to judge an AI system is perpetuating slop
Yeah, this is just ignorance. I'm not against using AI systems.
<a href="https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576" rel="nofollow">https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 does a good job of summarizing the problem with AI writing specifically this part: "If, however, prose is LLM-generated, this social contract becomes ripped up: a reader cannot assume that the writer understands their ideas because they might not so much have read the product of the LLM that they tasked to write it. If one is lucky, these are LLM hallucinations: obviously wrong and quickly discarded. If one is unlucky, however, it will be a kind of LLM-induced cognitive dissonance: a puzzle in which pieces don’t fit because there is in fact no puzzle at all. This can leave a reader frustrated: why should they spend more time reading prose than the writer spent writing it?"
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
Don't waste your time.
verdverm · · focus · HN ↗
One might ask if you are doing as much as you engage in this righteous journey of checking articles for everyone
Looks to be something new in the last two weeks. What changed for you?
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
I want to remind you - and myself - of this HN guideline. I've probably been edging this one lately too
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
> Don’t post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.
I was and still am under the impression this is okay given the above guideline.
guiambros · · focus · HN ↗
If you read the article and thought it was superficial, then say so. Constructive criticism is helpful for others, including the author. But simply copying and pasting from LLMs (including Pangram) is not much better than the the alleged slop you're implying in OP's submission.
More specifically, I read the article and felt it was a bit shallow, but still appropriate quick intro to Dr. Gruber and his work at Project CETI. A better link would be to Project CETI [1] directly.
I've seen a talk by Dr. Gruber and briefly spoke with him, and was mind-blown by what they're trying to accomplish. If they continue making progress, may be a decade or two away from achieving inter-species communication. Just think about it for a minute: if we manage to communicate with whales (or any other non-human species for that matter), we'd have massive philosophical, ethical, and even legal implications.
[1] <a href="https://www.projectceti.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.projectceti.org/
duhhhhh1212 · · focus · HN ↗
Yeah, this is just ignorance. I'm not against using AI systems.
<a href="https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576" rel="nofollow">https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0576 does a good job of summarizing the problem with AI writing specifically this part: "If, however, prose is LLM-generated, this social contract becomes ripped up: a reader cannot assume that the writer understands their ideas because they might not so much have read the product of the LLM that they tasked to write it. If one is lucky, these are LLM hallucinations: obviously wrong and quickly discarded. If one is unlucky, however, it will be a kind of LLM-induced cognitive dissonance: a puzzle in which pieces don’t fit because there is in fact no puzzle at all. This can leave a reader frustrated: why should they spend more time reading prose than the writer spent writing it?"