I would prefer to have the prompt he used to generate the article. Similarly, for compiled binaries, I would rather have the source code that produced them, instead of just an .exe file.
You seem to be right. The author is pumping out one such article per day. I think I've spent more time in forming my comment than they did in generating the article. Oh well :)
AI learned this figure of speech from humans. Even the frequency in which it is used is copied from humans. So you can't really use it to determine if something is written by an AI or not.
LLMs might follow the frequencies of the training data in their raw form, but nobody uses raw LLMs, they use models which have been RLHFed to hell and back to bias them towards specific patterns. Then newer models were trained on the output of those RLHFed models, and further RLHFed, and so on, and so on.
In practice RLHF isn't a survey of every living humans personal style or preferences though, its purpose is to make the model more useful in the eyes of the vendor, mainly by getting cheap third-world labor to nudge the model according to the vendors instructions. You don't get a subservient, sycophantic and "safe" chat interface out of unstructured data without putting your thumb on the scale, hard.
If you think that the article is written by human or that is is unclear, please go ahead. Others here on HN also have pointed out that the author shoots out such lengthy blog posts every day. And you can also see the typical emoji AI slop here: https://www.ivanturkovic.com/services/
But I have no issue with your argumentation whatsoever, it is just that I think there is more than sufficient evidence, and you think there is not.
I find it interesting that Germany is lit up like a candle, despite having relatively strict privacy laws. Nowhere else are there more buildings pixelated in Street View than in Germany.
Well StreetView was released in 2010 in Germany and not updated until 2023 (!). And the article doesn't take pixelated houses into account. Nowadays the material is finally up2date again and fewer houses pixelated (I think you had to request it again but nobody cared enough because there was no outrage like back then). The backlash in 2010 was overblown even back then.
The generational memory of the 1930's was still pretty accessible fifteen years ago. Less so now that the children of the late 1940's and early 1950's have mostly moved into an altersheim or are close to it.
That's why I often ask for "Source?" — because sometimes people seem to make up numbers. However, whenever I do this, I receive a large number of downvotes. Maybe it's not common on HN to back up claims with sources.
IMO putting an important number in your post/comment, and not providing a source for that number, is also kind of low effort. If you verified the number before writing, you already had the source ready and you could just put it in the comment. If you wrote the number from memory, not checking if your memory is correct is low effort (but you can also warn the readers that the number is from memory, that's better). If you're intentionally misrepresenting what the number means in your comment (and giving the source would contradict the meaning of your comment), or just giving a number that "feels right" or a number that you know is wrong, then it's low effort and a lie.
I try to verify important numbers and facts in what I read, and seriously, there's so much fake or misrepresented info everywhere, on every political side, that it's depressing, and it makes me don't believe literally anything without a source, unless I verify it myself. Of course when someone provides a source, I often look into the source, and sometimes it turns out that the text misinterpreted/misrepresented the meaning of the source. On Wikipedia, I also check if what is written is actually in the source, because sometimes the editor writes his own opinion while only loosely basing the text on a source (or basing it on nothing).
Verification can take some time, and that's the effort passed from the author of unsourced claim to its many readers, unless they just trust it or ignore the claim.
When I write anything I try to include sources for important things. If I wouldn't include a source, and someone asked "Source?" I wouldn't think "what an annoying guy", I'd think "oh, I could have linked that in the first place". And I usually upvote "Source?" comments (unless it's a thing that anyone can check in 30 seconds). I usually double-check the facts in what I'm writing, and many times I almost wrote something from memory that wasn't true, but looking for a source saved me from that.
This is also a low effort comment, despite the word count.
In contrast, shubhamjain found Meta's earnings release for the specified time period, quoted numbers that appear to contradict the claim, and provided a link to the release. This adds to the conversation, while a comment that says "Source?" or a few paragraphs that can be reduced to "Source?" do not.
I would imagine it's more you're being skeptical of something that is unpopular to be skeptical about. It's like someone saying climate change is impacting our planet, and then asking "source?" in response.
No, that's not correct. I ask "Source?" when someone makes a claim that goes against popular belief, such as: "climate change is not impacting our planet." I do think "Source?" is generally considered a low-effort response, so it's the wording I guess, not the context.
He was asking about the trend of him commenting with "Source?" leading to downvotes on other posts. I was giving an extreme example to represent why that may be happening elsewhere. I agree that in this case with the 3% rate it's likely not applicable.
No, I think both of the following statements can be true at the same time:
1. The audited financial statement meets all requirements and is accurate according to the relevant definitions, stating that the effective federal tax rate is 30%.
I don't think those statements can be true at the same time, without significant qualifications on (2) in a way that make it meaningless. Certainly not the reasonable straightforward reading of the phrase.
Maybe you are right, but maybe the significant qualifications are on (1) in a way that make it meaningless.
There is a reason why large companies have entire departments dedicated to identifying and utilizing every available national and international tax loophole, all while working to maintain a positive public image.
I am by no means an expert in this field, but I do know that in the US, money is the primary source of power. Major tech companies have vast financial resources - so much so that their wealth surpasses the GDP of many countries. It's also clear that lobbying holds tremendous influence in the US. For instance, organizations like the NRA and NSSF wield significant power, which is why strict gun control measures are rarely enacted, regardless of the number of casualties from mass shootings.
1. Money translates to power
2. We know lobbying is highly effective
3. There are numerous national and international tax loopholes
I’m simply connecting these three points. Some might suggest that the government could intervene, but do you really believe Trump would challenge these major corporations while refusing to disclose his own tax returns? Absolutely not. So these companies have the required power, motivation and lack of resistence to make it happen.
Companies use different numbers for different things for maximum advantage. The president of the United States does so routinely in his business dealings. One set of numbers when getting insurance and another when getting a loan.
