Already so, LLMs are trained on human-written text, and then spit out text they try to make human-like, so now a bunch of stylistic choices some humans made are "tellsigns of a human using LLMs for writing". It's not just bad, it's removing humanity from the humans.
this right here I think we all need to think on what is happening right now. Dead internet theory might be plausible. What goal would an AI writing crap responses on reddit/hacker news/what not have to even need to comment?
> What goal would an AI writing crap responses on reddit/hacker news/what not have to even need to comment?
Obviously the AI itself doesn't have any goal (that matters anyways), but the humans/organizations that set it up obviously have a lot to gain. Accounts of age/above karma thresholds are treated less suspiciously, so if you build up N accounts that way, eventually when you launch your product, each manufactured comment looks less fake as the accounts are already "established" at that point.
This is nothing new, been going on for decades already. Guess the scope kind of expanded and the required effort went down a lot these last few years though.
Your credibility is shot when you claim that banks will just give you money. They absolutely do not. In fact, Discover has admitted to me in writing, that they always rule in favor of the Merchant if that Merchant responds to the dispute -- regardless of what their response says.
I've dealt with multiple chargebacks over the years and have only ever lost once -- when the Manager at Lowes' showed a check they wrote me [after I opened the dispute].
They absolutely do not just do anything and "write it off".
Please be human and don't just rattle of high-confidence, baseless claims, especially as a giant billboard to Privacy.com
> Discover has admitted to me in writing, that they always rule in favor of the Merchant if that Merchant responds to the dispute -- regardless of what their response says
What, always? Like, literally 100% of the time if the merchant responds at all, they automatically win?
That's very hard to believe. I don't know Discover but I do know Visa and that's not how their system works at all.
I use Amex as much as possible because it’s basically never a fight. If I dispute, I get my money back. Granted, I don’t abuse the power so maybe I’ve earned some trust over the decades.
Don't you think it is more to-the-point to call it what it is and what the people running it with, i'll bet everything i have, absolute immunity, are doing and intend to do with it?
It is "honest" in the historical sense, certainly.
But the executive-order driven name change just another bit of illegal/extra-legal/paralegal behavior by the administration that, every time we just nod along, eats away at the constitutional structure of our government. So don't go along with it.
Personally, as someone coming from a region that has suffered many times over by the actions of this so called "Ministry of Defense," I feel like "Department of War" is a more accurate and honest term.
As I've noted multiple times here on HN, I don't disagree with this.
But the question is not about whether it is a more accurate and honest term. It is about people complying in advance with the illegal/extra-legal renaming of a federal agency by a president who does not have the right or authority to do so.
If we were talking about Congress voting to rename the DoD as the DoW, I'd have nothing to say on the matter that differed from your observation.
Steve was a real, well known, and well documented person with many surviving first-hand witnesses. In his biography, for example, it mentions him pressuring Clinton to tell the truth.
I think it's disingenuous to map one's insight into Steve to an insulting comic about a fictional character.
> it mentions him pressuring Clinton to tell the truth.
Truth about what? Did he also pressure the CCP to tell the truth about Tiananmen Square after he moved manufacturing there?
Virtue signaling to the press in a democratic country is cheap when your company is not at stake and politicians won't retaliate if you run your mouth. He wouldn't try that with the CCP and not with Trump today.
No it’s going to eat all of us soon, right now for some careers and maybe 30-50 years for the rest. Or to put it in another way, we are never going to be replaced by AI, we simply don’t hire anymore.
reply