Maybe we should just stop commenting about whether or not something is AI generated. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and is a waste of time.
An apology (in advance or afterward) doesn't absolve you of responsibility. And if you feel the need to apologize for something in advance, that's a huge clue that maybe you should stop yourself from doing the thing you've just apologized for.
Finding oneself with the need to apologize in advance is an excellent hint to examine extra hard if you really should do what you're apologizing for. Apologizing when necessary is good, not having to apologize is much better.
It's a great level-up for characters of most alignments.
I see now that it probably wasn't, but "nothing" is an overstatement.
And knowledgeable and helpful responses can be AI, so there might be a fallacy somewhere in your offence-taking.
Are you offended when people do that in general, or only when they are wrong?
I do appreciate the effort put into writing a good comment.
> it probably wasn't, but "nothing" is an overstatement.
No, "nothing" seems perfectly accurate to me. I don't see even a single indication in tone, phrasing or punctuation that is a classic LLM giveaway.
It's offensive to standards of decency to question the authenticity of someone's speech, and it doesn't matter if you phrase it as a question or preface it with "excuse me if not". Unless there is really a strong reason to suspect something, which is absolutely not the case here. It's offensive when it's not warranted.
Absolutely not. There was genuinely nothing in their thoughtful and informative reply that seemed AI generated to me. Have you never seen people on HN write detailed, articulate answers? This was one of them.
Asking a question, getting a helpful response, and then implying it was written by AI is quite rude. Saying, "Excuse me if not, $SOMETHING_VERY_OFFENSIVE" does not make "$SOMETHING_VERY_OFFENSIVE" any less offensive! It's disheartening to see someone take the time to write a great answer only to be met with such a rude question. Please don't do that here. It's frustrating and discourages genuine contributors.
But regarding flight ability, wouldn't that be V2?
I thought there exist conditions where V1 is well below rotation speed.
Anyways,
> to make sure you can stop before the end of the runway
answers my main question, and makes sense from a procedural standpoint.
But still, hard to believe that there is no room for in-situ evaluation if runway overrun is worse than likely crash.
Of course then again, those have to be split second decisions.
What an intensely rude thing to say to someone who has been providing specialist knowledge in a very deep technical field up and down this page.
[flagged]
Maybe we should just stop commenting about whether or not something is AI generated. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and is a waste of time.
An apology (in advance or afterward) doesn't absolve you of responsibility. And if you feel the need to apologize for something in advance, that's a huge clue that maybe you should stop yourself from doing the thing you've just apologized for.
2 replies →
Finding oneself with the need to apologize in advance is an excellent hint to examine extra hard if you really should do what you're apologizing for. Apologizing when necessary is good, not having to apologize is much better.
It's a great level-up for characters of most alignments.
I’d recommend giving your own goodwill in the future instead of accusing commenters and then asking for goodwill in response.
1 reply →
Nothing about it reads as AI to me. I'm not even the commenter and I take offense when people suggest that knowledgeable, helpful HN comments are AI.
I see now that it probably wasn't, but "nothing" is an overstatement.
And knowledgeable and helpful responses can be AI, so there might be a fallacy somewhere in your offence-taking. Are you offended when people do that in general, or only when they are wrong?
I do appreciate the effort put into writing a good comment.
> it probably wasn't, but "nothing" is an overstatement.
No, "nothing" seems perfectly accurate to me. I don't see even a single indication in tone, phrasing or punctuation that is a classic LLM giveaway.
It's offensive to standards of decency to question the authenticity of someone's speech, and it doesn't matter if you phrase it as a question or preface it with "excuse me if not". Unless there is really a strong reason to suspect something, which is absolutely not the case here. It's offensive when it's not warranted.
> but "nothing" is an overstatement
Absolutely not. There was genuinely nothing in their thoughtful and informative reply that seemed AI generated to me. Have you never seen people on HN write detailed, articulate answers? This was one of them.
Asking a question, getting a helpful response, and then implying it was written by AI is quite rude. Saying, "Excuse me if not, $SOMETHING_VERY_OFFENSIVE" does not make "$SOMETHING_VERY_OFFENSIVE" any less offensive! It's disheartening to see someone take the time to write a great answer only to be met with such a rude question. Please don't do that here. It's frustrating and discourages genuine contributors.
1 reply →
Nope, AI would probably have written it nicer, I just typed it on my phone :)
Oh, cheers then :)
But regarding flight ability, wouldn't that be V2? I thought there exist conditions where V1 is well below rotation speed.
Anyways,
> to make sure you can stop before the end of the runway
answers my main question, and makes sense from a procedural standpoint.
But still, hard to believe that there is no room for in-situ evaluation if runway overrun is worse than likely crash. Of course then again, those have to be split second decisions.