Comment by mattnewton
11 days ago
Seems like a measured approach- my read is him saying it’s probably a bubble in that bad ideas are being funded too, but there are a lot of really good ideas doing well.
Also nit: Typo right in the digest I assume, assuming “suring” is “during”, does cnbc proofread their content?
Typos are proof something wasn't Ai written. Everyone should make at least one tyop in their writing.
"Claude, make sure to sprinkle at least one typo in here. And no em dashes you hear?"
Faculty at the college I work for are kicking and screaming about AI and students using AI. They don't want to use new tools so they're just trying to outright ban students from using them.
One smug English faculty said, "well it's not that hard. You just look for dashes in their writing."
I responded with, "you know you can just tell it not to use those, right?"
Blank stares.
I hate it.
10 replies →
Only worms until the typos get into the training data. You need to say at least one thing no one has ever said before in every post.
R9k wins again
I see what ya did tbere :)
Then it’s a market for lemons. Buyers can’t (or choose not to) tell a good AI idea from a bad one.
A market for lemons means there is an information asymmetry. Sellers know what they have and try to offload their lemons on clueless buyers. I don't think that's the case here.
It is indeed hard to tell how many of the people selling this stuff are True Believers. It's also a bit scary, given how incredibly implausible some of these stuff they're saying is.
irony level IV
Apparently not. An LLM proofread would've definitely caught that