Any theories or conclusions in the article especially with regards to science and medicine is best ignored as the article was written by an LLM.

The photographs and text within quotes are probably the only human things in there. We might go to the source of the data (the brothers instagram) for better conclusions, but for me this well is poisoned by slop.

Submitted every day, sometimes multiple times per day.

https://hn.algolia.com/?query=A%20Day%20in%20the%20Life%20of...

by "human-written" do you mean you just used LLM to help the grammar and spelling and formatting and to think up some use cases but its entirely "my own words"?

I'm still trying to find the correct term for this, maybe you can help?

I think it's built into our selves that we think this way, or it's a common fallacy or thinking error or perhaps conscious decision to state that the present is the most important time ever and so that position brings a sense of urgency and force to ones argument. We see it on every political side left, right and centre and I think it's more easily seen in environmentalism which uses it as a central point. It doesn't mean that the arguments are necessarily wrong, more like it's a (potentially manipulative) way to spur action.

Looking at history and considering the past might be an antidote to manipulation. I'm still trying to find what the term is properly, Presentism and Chronocentrism seems to be on the right track?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(historical_analysi... Chronocentrism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronocentrism

Anyhow these lectures feel to me to be ultimately based on this - to motivate change according to some desired end. To think of the end of the world happening soon, so you better get motivated.

Like the Bene Gesserit in the Dune novels, long running institutions like the Church, I believe at its best understand humanity and measure time and weigh the present on a more universal scale.

If you've gotten this far and are still puzzled, consider this thought experiment: "Today is the closest we are to nuclear Armageddon, we must do something!" Many would agree with this statement. Now, think of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 - its likely that was actually the closest we got to it, and so the statement about today is false and so the urgency to do something now is weakened. One can understand therefore that to counter this inherent bias or fallacy is not something that we generally want to do.

It's the split. Many of us are mourning, you are not.

Maybe the stages of grief are not aligned yet. Or maybe it's as your post says there are two types of people.

I like the idea and wanted to play it out but after the incident began nothing happened and was stuck on waiting for incident to start, or "start incident"

Thanks for trying it out! Just pushed a fix - there was a bug where the game engine wasn't starting properly after clicking GO. Should work now. Create a free account and give it another shot, would love to hear how you do.

The discussion about the LLM assisted/written submission at the time, with replies by the author: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47055300 The defence given was essentially "just reformatted it for better grammar"

It's obviously says LLM to me at first read through.

I suspect that:

a) less people are willing to expend a bit of energy to notice LLM usage given how much of it is. ("we've lost" theory)

b) that people are losing the ability to detect LLM submissions. ("we're cooked" theory)

or c) that people don't care about the use of LLM. ("who cares" theory).

Personally I've been feeling less invested, because it seems as if most users don't care and even the main users of the site don't notice it.

Do you have any good links to guides on how to spot? I would like to care, but its hard to tell. and then what do we do when we spot it?

One guide that i hope is kept up to date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing . Generally though it's a kind of pattern recognition which for some patterns seems visible to me.

I should clarify and revise my thoughts and initial comment. I do not think that not being able to detect it leads to lack of care. I actually think that many things have passed me by and in the future this will be even more as LLMs improve ("we're cooked").

As to "what do we do when we spot it" - you hit the nail on the head of the feelings I felt as I was writing the comment. What do we actually do, what can we change and should we attempt futile things?

And even the example dang gave - the actual submission as very good. Is any amount of LLM use okay and what's the level? I use LLMs at work but I don't like writing readmes or blog posts with it. But others might like writing code at work by hand and don't like writing text so use LLMs for that. Maybe I lower my expectations!

Or even train LLM to catch LLMs. Like that old adage, use criminals to catch criminals.

Very nice, i like the timing for the prompts and the images that I got are charming too. It feels like early internet, it encourages us to be funny

Humans just need to adapt their pattern recognition skills. It's a continuous and changing effort. For some, not detecting it is the sign that they need to update their own systems not that the sign is wrong.

For many it's not worth the effort to even try anymore. Particularly when the content of a submission is about LLMs: why worry?

People who write about LLMs will use LLMs. That's the norm now. The exceptions are what we should look out for and cheer for.

HN users continue to upvote LLM written submissions.

The default for me is every LLM submission has little credibility unless proven otherwise. Enshittied.