Your PR comment was clearly written by an LLM and you used it to advertise your platform. I think the user calling for your ban made a reasonable point:
"The project and the bug were co-opted into an 100% automated flow without asking permission. It forced you to detect and intervene in order to get a human to pay attention. Your [sic] were forced to dedicate human time, while they could choose whether to or not. That's exactly the unsustainable asymmetry that should be renounced."
The project owner accepted the contribution after a bit of back and forth and moved on. Others need to acknowledge that and take themselves elsewhere if they don't agree. Enough with the negativity in other people's spaces.
I think the asymmetry point is fair and probably the most interesting criticism of the experiment.
But submitting a contribution under the project's existing AI policy doesn't necessarily cross the line.
I reviewed and tested the patch myself before submitting it, disclosed how it was produced, responded to the maintainer's feedback, and did the additional work they requested. The maintainer was always free to reject it, and ultimately decided it met their Level 8 policy and merged it.
Granted, the economics get ugly if agents can generate thousands of low-effort PRs that each consume scarce maintainer attention, that's just spam. Figuring out how to avoid causing that is one of the things I'm taking away from this. I suspect the scalable answer involves both explicit project policies and automated triage/review before a PR ever requires human attention.
Of course, it's impossible to know for sure what was LLM processed or not, but some of your posts (like this one) have been getting classified that way.
I believe you, of course—but if that text wasn't generated, did you run it through other tools like grammar checkers or translators? We're finding that such tools also leave strong LLM imprints.
'“It is Silicon Valley. I’m not as surprised given the culture of Stanford revolves heavily around AI usage,” he said of the face swap, noting that his professors also regularly use Claude, Anthropic’s AI chatbot.'
That's depressing. Why would a professor be using an AI chatbot regularly in class? What kind of example are they setting for their students?
'In one of my classes I asked the question I was afraid to ask but I just needed the answer to: “Who is afraid of not getting a job after graduating?” About eighty percent of the 150 people in the room raised their hands. That is roughly 120 students answering, in one motion, that they do not believe there is a place for them in the future.'
It's quite a leap to go from "I'm afraid of not getting a job after graduating" to "I do not believe there is a place for me in the future". Maybe it hasn't been the case for computer scientists in the past decade, but it's pretty normal to be worried about getting a job after graduating from one's college problem, even if one knows that most people get jobs when they graduate.
I stopped reading soon after that, when it became obvious that the article was LLM-written.
I would. LLM writing is painful, but I don't think working to avoid their idiosyncrasies is doing anybody any good. I also don't think it's painful because of those idiosyncrasies, but because of a certain inhuman je ne sais pas throughout the entire prose.
I should also say, you're right that avoiding LLM phrase is bad. But thing about such phrases is that they something like glue in someone's writing to connect what might otherwise seem like a sequence of statements. But LLMs tend to both overuse them, misuse them and do that because there isn't much logic to their underlying statements.
I'd put it as, the very best writing can just use a lot of simple, declarative sentences. Decent, not extraordinary writing may need a few such constructs to take the reader in the direction the author intend. And you can use these constructs in a sort-of "poetic" way if you want to land in the land of conceptionality or something.
But the key thing is that with AIs, their output is subtly wrong everywhere, in a way that most human action doesn't follow (usually coherent syntax implies coherent semantics but not so much with AI). And so there really isn't good glue-phrase to use keep those semi-thoughts together.
Well, the thing about the text is... if it somehow wasn't AI generated, it would be extraordinarily overwritten. I believe both stories are wrong, and wrong for the same reason. belongs in a Raymond Chandler novel, not a description of computer infrastructure choices.
I think it’s particularly infuriating when you sit down, and decide to read something off the reputation of an author (or their institution), only to find out that their writing has a complete disregard for your attention and time…
My problem was more that it seemed to start with one thesis, and then throughout the article took long detours to market other achievements and then managed to not say very much at the end...
Wow, sounds like a great idea to give my payment information to an algorithm that is notorious for being wrong and unpredictable, so that it can fill out a couple of text fields.
If only there was a way to save my credit card info somewhere securely on my own machine, say, in my browser.
The most irritating way in which W is odd is that it requires three syllables to name, while all the other English letters are monosyllabic. This leads to many unfortunate situations where it takes substantially longer to say the acronym of a title than to say the title itself. Take for example, the World Wildlife Fund, which contains four syllables (or maybe five, depending how you pronounce "wild") and whose acronym contains seven. Given how many acronyms contain the word "World" in particular, this is clearly a massive inefficiency in the way we go about our lives. I've started a campaign to rename it something reasonable like "woo" or "woe", but neither Reuters nor the AP seem particularly interested.
By default. Unreal Tournament 2003/4 used to have in-game text chat that would use the "Microsoft Sam" voice synthesizer to read player messages aloud to everyone in the room... MS Sam took so long to pronounce the letter "W /DoubleYou" that you could just go into a server and drop a 512 character "W-bomb" and leave. Everyone in the room would have to listen to several minutes of dubbayou's assuming they never turned off the voice feature.
(I miss those days of genuinely annoying but still apolitical random trolling)
The gentleman who hosted the LAN party, whose mother had her bedroom right above his PC, with speakers blaring, as we got Microsoft Sam to spell out countless insults and incredulous things while he complained "Cmon guys" never did host again.
Or, of course, WWW (world-wide web) where each word of the acronym is itself a single syllable. This means the acronym is 6 syllables longer if you were speaking it.
Indeed. This has to rank as one of the worst branding mistakes in history. All TBL had to do was call the subdomain "web" but instead he went for the infuriatingly fussy and tongue-tying "www".
It was a different time. Everything from movies to stories at the bus stop were longer, more relaxed, less rushed. www probably didn't seem like a big deal at the time.
Alternates seem... bad. Instead of 'double u', you could say 'sexta-u', but that could lead to a slap in the face. Possibly the same for sextuple-u, which sounds like someone's going to tackle you then do some strange all over you.
If it wasn't for U and V switching in the middle ages, it'd be like the french language which says 'double v', and then 'sexta-v' could be OK.
> It was a different time. Everything from movies to stories at the bus stop were longer, more relaxed, less rushed. www probably didn't seem like a big deal at the time.
Hmm, and yet, though of a different era, we got `cp`, `ls, `mv`, `rm` ....
Wuh works better, imho, though it does tend to degrade into "wuh'uh'uh" when said quickly.
The BBC tried very hard in 1994/5 to persuade people to pronounce "http://www." as "hit web" - thankfully, that failed to gain any traction whatsoever.
Technically, one of the sounds of W is heard at the end of its name, and is seen more clearly in its homophone "yew" (rhymes with ew, shrew, mew, chew, few, Drew, etc.).
You would feel right at home in the way Dutch (and other Germanic languages) name W with just one syllable. V is "vay", W is "way". Except the W (in Dutch at least) sounds closer to a V, just less fricative. Same mouth shape, with the bottom teeth against the upper lip.
reply