Relevant old school compression benchmarks where people have been using different models (incl. transformers) for compression: https://www.mattmahoney.net/dc/text.html
I know you're being downvoted, because people are tired of hearing "this is AI".
But I think your comment "this is AI" is warranted. This content, explaining something of cultural, personal significance (instead of the typical technical explainer) should really be written by a human.
> Possible false positive because of the text was translated from Japanese to English with AI?
People say this a lot, but I've never seen Claude or any other LLM insert clichéd LLM-isms into translated text.
There's obviously a degree of interpretation and "smoothing" that goes into translation, but it doesn't rise to the level of making the entire thing sound like an AI's voice. This blog post was prompted, not translated.
If I have read the article, then reached the comments sections, it's because I have found the subject interesting. It's like watching a movie and someone trying to tell me unsolicited news about the director's private life. I don't care: tell me about the movie, instead.
In the case of a blog that purports to be personal reflections, commenting that it is actually AI output is a comment on the content, not merely the form.
The topic is the expression "itadakimasu". What the blog purports to be, belongs in the boundary. Who wrote it belongs in the boundary. Whether the syntax is correct, contains em-dashes, uses nice colors and fonts, belong in the boundary. Comment about "itadakimasu" are on topic, others are off topic.
This is worthy feedback to the author (and others), that writing with clear AI tells/register is so distracting that it takes away from the spirit and content of the writing.
Perhaps this is just the zeitgeist and in 20 years this is irrelevant. It’s relevant for whoever is writing now.
You can say the same about detecting grammatical mistakes: it's nice to warn the author, but please send them a private message, don't pollute the comments section.
Pangram's actual classifier model is really strong. It has an incredibly low false positive rate. Whenever people complain about it, I ask them to provide verifiable non-adversarial long-form false positives, and nobody has done so yet. False negatives are more common (as they should be -- it's better to let an AI article through than to false accuse someone.) Their frontend is often misleading, though, for these reasons:
- 100% means that it thinks 100% of the article is AI, not that it's 100% confident the article is AI. It's very easy for people to get this confused.
- It is much less accurate on shorter text, and doesn't advertise this fact clearly enough.
- It works on chunks of text (I think they're like 100 tokens) and can't identify within that chunk which parts are AI and which parts are human.) This should be more clear in the UI, I think.
Anecdote: was testing Opus 5 and even ASD-STE100 cannot save you from its meta-commentary and signposting all the time. It writes what it wants to write, e.g. "here's where you are right/wrong" instead of "Your instinct of the shape is right, but here's a sharper version". I could not get it to stop doing that.
In contrast if you ask GPT 5.5/5.6 to speak directly/plainly, it will just straight up tell you the content "X is right, Y is wrong". Much preferable.
> They'd be 10x better than us already if task tedium was the problem... the areas where people think that LLMs excel at coding and don't like doing manually it's usually because the human was inclined to slop out repetitive boilerplate and thought that was the only way.
There is so much work out there that is repetitive / boilerplate / tedium. If you get to personally work on interesting work more than 50% of the time (pre-LLM) I'd say your job is #blessed.
IME if a technical task is tedious and repetitive it is nearly always because the system was badly designed or because it wasnt automated properly.
My job is automation and system design, so if I can't fix or work around these things that reflects poorly upon my skills.
Some people treat writing tests as inherently boring because their test frameworks usually suck. If they don't suck and a test is a very close approximation of a spec, it's not boring at all, especially if you use it as a means of codifying a spec before implementation.
Don't disagree that that's the system not working well.
You're lucky to be in a system that works out for you. Not everyone is in such a lucky position. LLMs help automate the tedium out of their job, and hopefully, have a bit more extra energy to make a better system within their immediate locus of control.
I'm sure you're where you are in some part due to hard work, skill, decisions. But surely you don't believe that it's purely down to skill where one lives/works at?
I get where you're coming from, and the intent to make it easier for people to find examples and verses, but there's a fine line with LLMs giving you answers, is that it's interpreting it in some form. Doesn't that run counter to prevailing ideology, that you're meant to either struggle with the materials / seek understanding yourself, or have your religious leaders interpret/receive those insights?
I don't necessarily mean reguritating it, but choosing which part of the scripture to surface to the user is already some interpretation/choice. Even the devil can quote scripture (I'm playing the devil's advocate here).
Very true. The verses selected come from a tool call. The LLM queries the app for relevant verses. It picks the keywords - so perhaps there’s bias there but the verses are handed to the LLM.
But there are ways to control and constrain the LLMs and what the user is presented with.
These are all top of mind for me and why I felt there could be a better option than asking ChatGPT directly.
> Doesn't that run counter to prevailing ideology, that you're meant to either struggle with the materials / seek understanding yourself, or have your religious leaders interpret/receive those insights?
I think it depends, Catholics wouldn't be able to use this because the Magisterium is the ultimate authority on interpreting Scripture, so the personal interpretation isn't really needed. This is not to say that Catholics don't read the Bible, they are encouraged to do so since it deepens their faith
On the other hand, for Protestant it varies, the High Church denominations are closer to Catholics (though none of them accept the Magisterium) in terms of scripture interpretation, but the Low Church ones (like Baptists or Non-Denominational ) are more open to personal interpenetration.
Disclaimer: I'm a Catholic, so if I made a mistake here fellow Protestants, please correct me.
Kinda, more accurately the current goal for labs is to produce economic value to justify high valuations / capex, thus having to RL on correct answers rather than interesting ones.
If you could access the current models as base models I guess you'd still get very interesting hilarious stuff.
idk if you're still actually looking for a solution (I got nerdsniped heh), but I found a seamless way to have it locked into the speakers + room, instead of a specific source/software, is using an iLoud subwoofer that routes to any speaker setup and has room correction + EQ that lives on the sub.
What you said made me think that it's similar (not entirely the same, but adjacent) to those make-a-website for $XX or buy-a-template era of websites.
If we think about that as the intended competition (and not websites corps spent millions on design/polish/copy), I'd argue that AI (model + coding agent + skills + whatever) is doing a better job overall. Most agencies don't spend enough effort in understanding what you want, or hire juniors and bill them as seniors. It's almost always late, overbilled, somewhat what you said you wanted but not really, and technically terrible.
The Neon Ramen example look really cool at first glance, but if you spend more than a second or 5 looking at it you keep finding visual glitches, inconsistent design, and elements which don't belong. It's nice for a brainstorming phase, but that's about it.
If you were to go with a buy-a-template you'd probably end up with a less flashy design, but at least it'd be consistent. Those templates are built by combining standard styled elements to create a bunch of common design patterns. Sure, nothing looks great, but nothing looks bad either!
If you don't really care about a website, going for a ready-made template is by far the safer, easier, and cheaper option. And if you go for something like Squarespace, you don't even need an agency at all.
I like this argument, but I don't think the article argues against taking urgency into consideration. Do you have anecdotes about companies or people that actually ignore urgency?
I've experienced enough business-critical incidents (or requests) where people across all seniority are just randomly trying stuff, making a mess, without taking time to coordinate, understand the problem, and solve it. It almost always resulted in more overall time and bigger blast radius than if we did it not out of panick.
OTOH my "slow" (I still did things fast, just not purely for the sake of looking fast) and steady approach always took me less time overall to find a proper fix. I also became known as the person who could always find the best possible fix when there's an incident/time constraint, but I also thought that was systematically bad instead of fixing the culture/process.
It's still faster to take a minute (and deep breath), understand the whole problem (incl. urgency and how that affects your solutions), and then solve it. It doesn't mean you can't keep your customers in the loop and assuage their concerns.
Businesses fake urgency all the time. I guess I have never worked in any of these 'high stakes' companies. My whole career, everything was reportedly urgent, but when you missed the deadline, nobody dies, nobody got fired, you just slipped a little and leadership pretended even more urgency. And if you slipped a lot, people got burned out and quit and leadership would institute 'war rooms' and 'crunch time'. And if you slipped a hell of a lot, the project would probably get canceled and the rest of the team was absorbed into various other projects. Nothing matters, the company's stock goes up and down randomly--having nothing to do with your project's failure or success, yet the message from above is always "FAST FAST RUSH URGENT!!!"
Yeah it's a well-known secret, and I think any sort of scoring system misses the point. The scentific method (and system, incl. peer reviews) is a public good (like good governance) that requires moral acknowledgement, the necessary social/cultural/political/academic pressures, and discipline of taking care of it by participating parties.
If you add a score/metric this incentivizes the wrong thing, like how money, funding, and career already incentivizes all the wrong non-scientific behaviors (like faking data, p-hacking, etc.)
Also interesting the top entry is from fabrice bellard: https://bellard.org/nncp/nncp.pdf