I like the analogy, but I don't see how it's applicable here?
The 100m dash record is about an objective mesaureble property of the device, speed in this example. If we were talking, say, about inference speed, then yes, of course it's Claude who generated X tokens in Y seconds, not you.
Isn't a better analogy to ask if you drove a car completely on autopilot to some destination, then was it you who drove there or the car?
Also, for the record, I also don't like the AI-written publications. My concern is the consistency in using the terms. This is also related to the idea to not to antromorphize AI.
Yup. Something about this sentence reeks of Opus 5.5: "The one exception is the n-word: it is in the list in English and several other languages, and I'm not writing it out."
There is something very funny to me about how that word (I’d write it directly if I knew I could without getting auto-dead) has somehow been deemed the most offensive word of all time. What makes it different from any other slur based upon identity?
Using that word means that centuries of enslavement and subhuman treatment are not abhorrent to you. Because a person who finds it abhorrent would never use it. In essence it shows you still put yourself above other people in that incredibly vile way
Yeah, what is it with the fucking 4-word sentences (subject, verb, object) which AI use that aggravate me. Always so short and "punchy". Maybe it's the aggression and breatheless haste...
I can't focus and read this shit. The other article on the frontpage https://blog.nns.ee/2026/11/02/renault-hack/ also used LLM for the work, but I think a human wrote it (or he's using an LLM that's managed to sound human). It's so readable!
Edit: a snippet from the slop:
> There is no public API
> I looked. NSSpellChecker, UITextChecker, NaturalLanguage and UILexicon don't expose vulgarity.
I think the fucking problem is, each sentence is supposed to convey information. Here "I looked." is prominent, but is it information? No, it's fucking useless. Remove it and it doesn't even change the information. Meanwhile readers' brains are trying to process why the author included this sentence, it must have value?
But if it gets rogue and hacks some websites then it's suddenly again you, not Claude.
If I use a car to break the 100m dash record, it's the car. If I then run someone over at the finish line, it's me.
This is not some novel legal loophole.
I like the analogy, but I don't see how it's applicable here?
The 100m dash record is about an objective mesaureble property of the device, speed in this example. If we were talking, say, about inference speed, then yes, of course it's Claude who generated X tokens in Y seconds, not you.
Isn't a better analogy to ask if you drove a car completely on autopilot to some destination, then was it you who drove there or the car?
Also, for the record, I also don't like the AI-written publications. My concern is the consistency in using the terms. This is also related to the idea to not to antromorphize AI.
[dead]
[flagged]
Yup. Something about this sentence reeks of Opus 5.5: "The one exception is the n-word: it is in the list in English and several other languages, and I'm not writing it out."
There is something very funny to me about how that word (I’d write it directly if I knew I could without getting auto-dead) has somehow been deemed the most offensive word of all time. What makes it different from any other slur based upon identity?
Using that word means that centuries of enslavement and subhuman treatment are not abhorrent to you. Because a person who finds it abhorrent would never use it. In essence it shows you still put yourself above other people in that incredibly vile way
7 replies →
Yeah, what is it with the fucking 4-word sentences (subject, verb, object) which AI use that aggravate me. Always so short and "punchy". Maybe it's the aggression and breatheless haste...
I can't focus and read this shit. The other article on the frontpage https://blog.nns.ee/2026/11/02/renault-hack/ also used LLM for the work, but I think a human wrote it (or he's using an LLM that's managed to sound human). It's so readable!
Edit: a snippet from the slop:
> There is no public API
> I looked. NSSpellChecker, UITextChecker, NaturalLanguage and UILexicon don't expose vulgarity.
I think the fucking problem is, each sentence is supposed to convey information. Here "I looked." is prominent, but is it information? No, it's fucking useless. Remove it and it doesn't even change the information. Meanwhile readers' brains are trying to process why the author included this sentence, it must have value?
[flagged]