talos

Hmm I'm curious which blog post tripped it? I tried a few from your site in 2023 and none of them were flagged as AI generated.

Did this not read as AI generated to you?

Yeah, it's got a real issue with false positives. And I've tried a bunch of other tools (Sapling, ZeroGPT, a few others) and actually GPTZero was the best of the bunch. The others would miss obviously AI generated content that I'd just generated to test them.

I've had a blog post kicking around about this for a while, it's CRAZY how much more expensive AI detection is than AI generation.

In my mind content generated today with AI "tells" like the above and a general zero-calorie-feel that also trip an AI detector are very likely AI generated.

It's also full of head scratchers like this:

> Technology costs do decrease. However, demand always migrates to the newest, most powerful models.

> People do not:

> Choose GPT-3.5 because it is cheap.

> Select a lower-tier Claude model on purpose.

People definitely can, and do, both things for many workloads. Coding is an obvious exception, but oftentimes a cheaper model is good enough. And businesses that had to spend $5/MTok on a frontier model last year can probably get similar performance and spend $0.50/MTok or less today.

AI generated content. Shame they couldn't bother to have a human spend time on this, it's a fair point.

Yeah it reads like it, and if a random AI detector (GPTZero) is to be believed it's pretty much all AI generated.

Crazy that nobody can be bothered to get rid of the obvious AI-isms "This isn't just for...", "The Challenges (And How We Handle Them)", "One PR. One review. One merge. Everything ships together." It's an immediate signal that whoever wrote this DGAF.

The Information article can be found on archive.is.

Both the OP article and this Times of India article appear to be AI-generated summaries of the original article.

Craziness!

Twelve years and running!

I don't think OP's idea would work, but if it did you could just ask for a translation.

Just did a little digging and looks sus -- see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36693222

> EDIT: It looks, at best, like a vanity project, and, most likely, a scam. The founder is a television personality [1]. Article claims the firm “currently produces chemical and electric propulsion systems for the aerospace and defence sectors,” yet they somehow have fewer than double checks £5,000 in fixed assets [2]. They hired this real estate and art advisory dude to raise capital for them in 2019 [3][4], who apart from two other individuals [5], is the main outside shareholder. The Princeton Propulsion Systems they’ve “partnered with” is crowdfunding $100,000 [6]. (The latter look marginally legit—I assume Pulsar signed a non-binding LOI with them. That or they’re the £300,000 [2] current liability Pulsar raised money from the real estate and art advisor this January [7] to extinguish.)

Couldn't this be trivially confounded by differing patterns of diet soda consumption between groups with differing likelihoods of autism-diagnosed children?

HN hugged to death?

RIP http://www.sliceharvester.com/

I'm curious what the split was in Mapbox union organizing interest between Engineering/Product/Design/Data and Sales/Marketing/other go-to-market roles.

Browsing the old union website (https://www.mapboxworkersunion.org/) almost all of the supporters of unionization were on the engineering side of the house, much more than I'd expect if you randomly sampled the org for job titles.

I wonder why that is?

This is true, but the workaround proposed in the article is not a change to the query at all. It's adding another index, which is a pretty classic case of "proper" usage of query analysis (as opposed to confusing/hacky mutations of the query itself).

I definitely agree with you, but in this case the Postgres team itself frames the suboptimal behavior as such:

> However, PostgreSQL's planner is currently not very smart about such cases.

(From https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/indexes-index-only-scans....)

I suspect this is just a rough edge. Many types of functions may not be consistent, and therefore would need to be re-executed on the original data. Perhaps some of the planner functionality here predates function notation like `IMMUTABLE`.

Same for me, but nothing shown on their status page (as of 10:03AM eastern) https://status.slack.com/

Interesting to see this data released, but I'm a little dubious.

According to the spreadsheet, Aetna is always paying 100% of list, and SEIU 1199 is always paying exactly 50%.

Most of the other private providers are listed with almost-flat discounts (85% for CHP, 71% for Empire, 60% for Healthfirst) with a handful of operations at other price points. Cigna has a little more variety but is mostly listed at 51%.

Only Emblem shows real variety across the board, with prices listed from 21.9% to 174%. It also has the lowest mean/median, at 45% and 34% respectively.

I know from personal experience that Aetna does have negotiated rates with NYP, and the flat discounts for all providers other than Emblem are also suspicious.