Is it “plagiarism” to misattribute hallucinated quotes? Not that a whole lot of sloppy, unprofessional shortcuts weren’t taken, but plagiarism doesn’t seem like the right word, as quotes are almost definitionally not plagiarism. But maybe these were paraphrasings masquerading as quotes, so maybe that’s the difference.
Yeah, it's the lack of attribution that is key, even if it sounds like a trivial and ceremonial step. If a New York Times reporter writes "'Our investigation has completely stalled,' Kings County Sheriff Bob Jones told the Springfield Observer", I can infer that the NYT is reliant on local reporting for this story and may not have done original on-the-ground work themselves.
Imagine how flimsy Ars' story about a blog post would look like if the story had correctly attributed the quotes (fabricated or not) to, "according to Claude AI's analysis of the blog post". The reader would have the right to wonder if the reporter had even read the blog post.
Plagiarism hurts not only the original author (in this case, I don't think we have to worry about the LLM), but also the reporter's audience, who has an expectation that the writer's reporting and analysis are original and based on the writer's own research and observations. At the very least it's a theft of the reader's time, if I wanted an LLM's perspective on a topic, I'd generate it myself
One of the things left unsaid in Edwards's apology [0] was whether he read the blog post that is the entire raison d'etre of his story. It's not like the story purported to do anything other than incorporate publish blog posts. So in his overworked and sickened state, how did trying out an "experimental Claude Code-based AI tool" substantially save him time versus jotting notes while ostensibly reading the source material himself
"Slop" and "hallucinate" have meanings outside of AI too, but it's easier to repurpose existing words than come up with a whole new lexicon for AI failure modes.
I don’t believe that’s true. Private Cloud Compute is restricted to newer phones that already support on device Apple
Intelligence. It’s just that the on device model is basically limited to simple stuff. Safari page summarization and the text rewriting features are run in the cloud. You can tell because those features go away without a network connection, and don’t cause the phone to warm.
I think people that aren’t objecting to AI mass surveillance of populations: haven’t recognized how thorough and invasive these technologies will become; think the current governments share their values and lists of enemies; naively think government priorities will never change, and that scopes will never increase.
Perhaps Trump's DOD objects specifically to Anthropic models themselves declining to do immoral and illegal things, and not something just stipulated in an ignorable contract. That would give room for Sam to throw some public CYA into a contract, while neutering model safety to their requirements.
Don’t become numb. They want normal people to be depoliticized, silent, and withdrawn. We’re so much easier to subjugate and exploit that way: hopeless and spineless. They take more and more each day.
1Blocker, with their in-app tracker blocking turned on, will block Apple News ads on iOS/iPadOS and will also block ads in Google News and free to play games. I guess you can’t block tracking without also blocking the ads. It installs a local VPN profile that blocks connections to hosts typically blocked with dns based ad blockers. They’ve increasingly hidden the feature in the app, for some reason.
I haven’t noticed it consume any additional battery. It doesn’t actually connect to a vpn server, or reencrypt traffic. It’s just a hack to deny select connections. I often do end up turning it off after a few days, though, because some times I need tracking redirects to work, and I’m too lazy to always whitelist.
I also notice the commentariat here is progressive, but it seems the silent but pervasive downvote campaigns are dominated by, or more charitably, inadvertently aligned with those MAGA oriented views. I’ve come to think of the right wingers mainly contributing to the community with their downvotes. Perhaps they don’t feel they would fair well if they tried to engage in discussion? But it’s an interesting dynamic that a group of silent individuals only make their presence known through the conspicuousness of the censorship they leave in their wake.
> Perhaps they don’t feel they would fare[sic] well if they tried to engage in discussion?
Most of the time when I do see blatant “rightposting” it’s so misinformed and provocative to be indistinguishable from trolling / baiting, so I can’t even tell if it’s downvotes for disagree vs downvotes for suspected trolling.
The less blatant “rightposting” flies quite a bit under the radar, pretty much by definition, which is what the grandparent comment was probably referring to when they said they interpreted HN as leaning right. More like laissez-faire economics.
In light of that possibility, HN's voting system is probably too rudimentary, private and zero-cost for the modern world. Now I'm not sure if it's naivete, laziness or meant to allow opaque maligned censorship.
Most downvote bots still appear to be observing US office hours though. There's a marked difference in voting patterns between the hours that Australia wakes up and California wakes up versus the rest of the day.
reply