It is absolutely painful for interviewers and candidates. I used to be able to email managers & founders directly and discuss what they were looking for... today everybody is navigating a deluge of spam and the interview process is becoming dysfunctional.

Pangram says this comment is %100 LLM generated.

It certainly reads as LLM generated!

It was.. but not in the way people generally think. Im not a native english speaker. Therefore, I use chatgpt to fix my comment sometimes. This was done the same way.

I get it and I'm not trying to get down on you, but I've seen people around say this and it bugs me.

I don't know Japanese at all. Sometimes I use LLMs to translate discord messages into Japanese so I can communicate with Japanese people. Then as verification I translate the messages back (with different LLMs) and they usually come out as a near-verbatim version of what I wanted to say. In other words, they don't come out in the chatgpt style of writing.

If I'm able to do that, then chatgpt should be able to fix your English without chatgpt-ifying the whole comment.

Point accepted. But,

If there are people who focus more on chatgpt "style" of writing, rather than what the message is conveying, frankly, I don't care.

These things are here, they are here to say, and expand into a lot more domains.

I agree. I'm as skeptical as many commenters but I also think the degree of polarization in HN around this technology and the degree to which people are calling those with different views shills or naysayers is pretty sad.

There's nothing sneaky about terms & conditions. If the gov wants a service they legally need to abide by its terms, same as us, if they don't like it they should choose another product.

Anthropic doesn't want their AI used for misaligned mass surveillance scanners and killbots, there are obvious reasons they might not want that.

We only know that people vote (slightly) blue in an inconsequential twitter poll. I think it's likely in a real scenario like this red would win.

I'm sure you're right that AI augmented workflows can (& do?) produce beautiful works that I would call art... it's just that the overwhelming majority of AI 'art' I experience on the internet is slop.

I feel like I make this comment a lot, but: how do you know?

You recognize obvious slop as slop. But this is a survivor bias-like phenomenon. You have no idea what goes unnoticed.

If you're talking about stuff posted to communities that are self-selecting for AI art submissions, that's another kind of fallacy.

Because good things are few and far between and it's pretty easy to discern provenance out of band in almost all of those cases.

There are so many basic gaps in functionality and so many underbaked & poorly designed Mac OS features that I end up papering over with paid 3rd party applications.

That is how Apple makes money. By design.

In order for that to actually be a money-making strategy for Apple, those third-party apps that address weaknesses in the OS would have to be sold through the Mac App Store so that Apple gets a cut. I've been a Mac user since before there was a Mac App Store, and I've never bought such a utility through the App Store. I have paid for several such apps over the years in ways that did not generate any direct revenue for Apple, and most of those apps likely could not be distributed through the App Store because of how they muck around with private APIs and other OS internals.

Those third-party apps do increase the overall appeal of Apple's platform, but suggesting that Apple might want to encourage that situation rather than improve their OS themselves sounds like a broken windows fallacy.

Apple hardware is incredible but the OS software & increasingly the design is mid at best.

I've directly experienced this and it is roughly as sane and effective as it sounds.

It used to be worse, these days you can at least link between storybook and figma and have similar component naming and figma mostly uses css mental model. Before we had invision and sketch and designers and developers lived in their own worlds that were just completely disjoined.

I notice the title mentions the author is a former employee but he never mentions the terms on which he left.

at the bottom of part 4 -

> The org’s leadership responded with strong defensiveness and denial. Not long afterward, the organization terminated my employment.