It would be more concise and the analysis section at the end would be more useful. I still read it I just hate reading articles online knowing I could have run a chatgpt deep research to the same effect.
Can you tell me what you would cut, in this article, specifically, that would make it more meaningfully concise?
The point isn't that you can't run the deep research. Everyone now has more capabilities, and if you want to waste time and tokens you can do it. The point is someone has done the work compiling these, and made it available once, for everyone to read. Think "caching". It has the exact amount of information needed to show the details of every attack. There is a lot. Sadly making it "concise" will remove information -- there is that much.
I do usually make edits to an article after I get it from an AI, as an editor would do when a writer submits something. I hate having AI shibboleths like "It's not X. It's Y". So I make it more humanized. But at the end of the day, the article does what it's supposed to do: make people aware of things in one place, rather than have to research it themselves every time.
It's poorly structured. I think a better split between technical vs social measures and how they interact would result in a much better article. It also doesn't seem to even mention DPI or great firewall of China as prior art.
[dead]
What would that improve in this case?
It would be more concise and the analysis section at the end would be more useful. I still read it I just hate reading articles online knowing I could have run a chatgpt deep research to the same effect.
Can you tell me what you would cut, in this article, specifically, that would make it more meaningfully concise?
The point isn't that you can't run the deep research. Everyone now has more capabilities, and if you want to waste time and tokens you can do it. The point is someone has done the work compiling these, and made it available once, for everyone to read. Think "caching". It has the exact amount of information needed to show the details of every attack. There is a lot. Sadly making it "concise" will remove information -- there is that much.
I do usually make edits to an article after I get it from an AI, as an editor would do when a writer submits something. I hate having AI shibboleths like "It's not X. It's Y". So I make it more humanized. But at the end of the day, the article does what it's supposed to do: make people aware of things in one place, rather than have to research it themselves every time.
12 replies →
It would be written by a human.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.
It's poorly structured. I think a better split between technical vs social measures and how they interact would result in a much better article. It also doesn't seem to even mention DPI or great firewall of China as prior art.