Are you trying to argue that archeological texts weren't written by humans? Because otherwise I don't understand how your comment is related to the parent comment. It has nothing to do with not knowing the identity of the author. It's about the author being a human.

> trying to argue that archeological texts weren't written by humans?

I’m arguing they’re minds of unknowable foreignness to our own. We fill in the gaps because the text per se has meaning. If anything, we give those minds meaning through the text, not the other way around.

We impute “the thoughts that produced” those writings. One can just as easily contemplate the method through which human writing got distilled into a matrix of numbers that produced a particular output in response to a prompt.

(I’ve absolutely read works without a care in the world for the author.)

They are still minds, though. And there's no reason to believe they're actually unknowable. You're trying to inject more mystery than is actually warranted. Ancient people have a lot in common with us just by virtue of being similar physical beings in similar environments with similar problems.

We can debate fine meanings of ancient texts. But at minimum the bare facts of, say, the story of Gilgamesh passed through ancient humans' minds in a similar way as it passes through ours. That's still more than we can say for AI-written text.

> One can just as easily contemplate the method through which human writing got distilled into a matrix of numbers

Humans aren't matrixes, though. Humans want to communicate with other humans, beings who face the same problems we do. That's why we care about human thoughts. No one cares what a matrix thinks, no one healthy anyway.

If anything, difference in mind is a reason to read. I want to know what experiences the other person has had which contribute to their perspective. No less so in areas like technical writing where perspective may be less overt.

> difference in mind is a reason to read. I want to know what experiences the other person has had

I thoroughly agree. What I'm disagreeing with is this being an indispensable reason for reading. There is nothing oxymoronic in reading e.g. the output of an LLM. (Plenty of bad writing contains something that makes it worth reading.)

You're still hung up on this idea that violating boundaries and being a man are synonymous, and that what makes it creepy is how attractive you are.

Whether someone is attractive or not, they're perfectly capable of not bothering someone who doesn't want to be bothered.

You're basically saying "if an unattractive man who doesn't respect boundaries is creepy, but also an attractive man that doesn't respect boundaries is creepy, then that means all men are creepy."

Do you really think that the response to "hi, my name is Bob!" being attraction or repulsion is not related to how attractive the man is?

Also, men are expected to initiate the opening. Very few men are attractive enough to not need to do that.

I teased a friend of mine long ago that his pickup line was "ok". The women approached him one after the other. Yes, he was tall and handsome. What works for 1% of men doesn't work at all for the rest of us.

It's very telling that you think creepy and ugly are you synonyms and non-creepy and attractive are synonyms.

Those guys are creepy too.

If they're a non-creepy guy, it's because they don't behave like a creep. Not because they're handsome.

> FFS, git is a tool for programmers.

We already said it has a garbage UI, you don't need to repeat it

But jokes aside, usually the reason something is considered a "tool for programmers" and not just a tool is because the UI sucks.

If you look at any other details of this it is very clearly vibecoded.

> Long-running tasks like batch mode completions and agent sessions may incur overages beyond your project spend cap.

> Billing data processing times can be delayed in AI Studio, up to around 10 minutes. You may experience overages beyond your project cap if billing data hasn't processed before more charges are accrued.

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/billing#project-spend-...

That's a soft cap, not a hard cap

I'm reading a book by Asimov at the moment, printed 1989. The first page is an ad for a Robert Silverberg book adaptation of the Nightfall short story. Pages 2-3 are ads for other Asimov books. The last 5 pages are an excerpt of Edge of Eternity. And the final page is an advertisement for Voice of the Planet, a "5 episode TBS miniseries starring William Shatner and Faye Dunaway"

"My AI writing isn't slop. It's just as good as buzzfeed lists or celebrity gossip articles."

Those are just awful compared to the side view of a pelican on a bike.

Have you seen a pelican from underneath? There's not much to show!

Which of these programs is easier to review

  {x{x,sum -2#x}/0 1}

or

  def f(n):
      if n <= 1:
          return n
      else:
          return f(n-1) + f(n-2)

They're both the same program

Good question.

But it is orthogonal to the question of evaluating 2000 lines of AI code vs 200 lines of human written code. Either the human or the AI could produce idiomatic code for either language, given sufficient training data in the AI’s corpus for the language.

My guess is that the first one is much quicker to review, for a human equally fluent in both languages.