Your comment is fully AI generated which is against HN guidelines https://www.pangram.com/history/6e9e9161-73d8-4860-88cf-2424...

> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I know this is being marketed for students and such but honestly even if you are a developer who works primarily with web dev stuff you will be able to do all of it on this device. Or if you are a product manager in a tech company, this is perfect device.

IMO there is a small subset of Mac users today(gamers, local LLM users, editors, mobile devs) for which this won't be the best option

Did you read the article? Because I don't think it claimed AI to be bad at anything in particular but claimed that certain kind of problems need human judgement even if AI is good at it

> They rely on judgement, experience, and trust to set a plausible course and correct it when needed, and don’t hinge on determining a correct answer or providing facts

We need judgement when we can't verify/prove that the answer is correct so we need a human we can trust. For example in author's example the pandas snippet is verifiably correct and I don't really care about judgement in that case. When there is a verification/test that gives a clear pass/fail to AI, the AI can just keep throwing stuff at the wall until it's green and it's good enough for a lot of use cases.

Looks like complete AI slop without any clear communication of what value is provides to user; flagged

At least the AI was self-aware enough not to add a LICENSE file.

I mean COVID was 5 years ago and many companies have had multiple rounds of layoff since then, how long will we keep calling it covid shedding

Yeah, I was thinking the same. It seems like you can get data for whatever argument you want to support

The post itself is 100% AI written https://www.pangram.com/history/6572a5c4-f548-46e2-977d-9813...

Reminder that AI-writing detection tools are largely junk.

Pangram is reliable. Quoting from their website

> Pangram achieves essentially zero false positive rates and false negative rates on medium-length to long passages.

Well, with such a trustworthy source, I have to believe it.

Note Pangram is not like the others and has heavy academic research on statistical method soundness

> Reminder that AI-writing detection tools are largely junk.

In what way? False positives or false negatives?

Ironic

The post itself is 100% AI written https://www.pangram.com/history/f4d6b5be-271b-45fa-a732-8182...

And you don't need to trust Pangram (I think Pangram is pretty good, but). Imho the headings alone are sufficient to give it away, Claude et al love "The XYZ Dilemma" etc and that's every single one of the headings here.