It's insulting to read your AI-generated blog post

Re:It's insulting to read your AI-generated blog post by SamPatt on Tuesday October 28, 2025 @12:43AM (#45729259)

I doubt this. I've done AI annotation work on the big models. Part of my job was comparing two model outputs and rating which is better, and using detailed criteria to explain why it's better. The HF part.

That's a lot of expensive work they're doing, and ignoring, if they're just later poisoning the models!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It's insulting to read your AI-generated blog post by h4ck_th3_pl4n3t on Thursday October 30, 2025 @01:40AM (#45756747)

GP kind of implying that AGI is already there, and all companies are just dumbing them down because of regulations of the law.

I'm like "Sure buddy, sure. And the nanobots are in all vaccines, right?"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It's insulting to read your AI-generated blog post by oceanplexian on Sunday November 02, 2025 @08:15AM (#45790071)

If your company built a super intelligent LLM, say that could find Alpha in the financial markets, would you make it public to anyone with a ChatGPT subscription?

Of course not! You would use it to trade and would keep it concealed. Same thing applies as AGI or even as really good code gen gets closer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:It's insulting to read your AI-generated blog post by h4ck_th3_pl4n3t on Monday November 03, 2025 @04:29AM (#45797300)

How often did you see an actual UFO?

How likely is it that you saw a plane made by humans that you misclassified due to lack of data vs how likely is it that it was actually an Alien made aircraft, coincidentally working in our atmospheric conditions, gravity and drag related physics?

Guess what, it's about likeliness and you are extrapolating the wrong assumptions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not the other way around.

[ Parent | on HN ]