nzealand

It’s a promotion for the book, which presumably has more details?

Whenever I am anxious about a presentation, a motorcycle ride to the presentation usually puts everything in perspective.

> by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.

How long do you estimate it took him to read the article?

> the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.

I seriously doubt that.

First, the author documented a substantial effort (testing, emails, references to documentation.)

Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not.

> Broken sentences that a model wouldn't produce. "The value is while you are on ChatGPT and tied to your ChatGPT account" is missing a word. "Loading that code, sends __obi to OpenAI" has a comma splitting subject from verb. "By the virtue of loading the tag the identifier is disclosed" is non-idiomatic. LLMs are fluent to a fault; these are the fingerprints of a fast human writer, possibly a non-native English speaker.

Third, I read it. Whilst it is not well written, it is succinct. It is novel. It has a few detailed references. It lacks many of the hallmarks of AI. It makes a number of novel yet falsifiable claims.

I challenge you to come up with a blog post with these qualities that can be created in under 15 minutes via AI.

While I commend you on actually using an AI tool to validate your assumption, rather than simply hurling AI slop accusations based purely on vibes, I do think you and your AI tool are likely incorrect.

He spent the next month coming up with an algorithm to solve it, not knowing if such an algorithm was even possible.

After he sold the puzzle, he traveled around to various conferences, to prove it could be solved.

It took Ernő Rubik four years to develop the cube.

He immediately scrambled it, then spent the next month figuring out if it could be solved.

Luckily no one told him there were 43 quintillion valid combinations.

Early internet wisdom was "don't feed the trolls" - I never realized trolling was from fishing.

Funny.

The didge forces you to learn circular breathing, it's cheaper, it is easier to learn, and is easier to play well. Plus I think it sounds better. Everyone should learn to play the didgeridoo. Bagpipes are a whole another level, and feel more like a practical joke gone horribly wrong (Sorry Gran.)

AI is your Google and your yellow rubber ducky (rubber duck debugging) all rolled into one.

We intuitively think large documents show significant thought.

I don't just mean the readers.

The generators of slop often think this is useful.

Things have changed.

Our intuition has not.

> Fake because no uber eats order is under 30$

“If cracking propagates with continued use and strain, the wheel stud could eventually separate from the wheel hub.”

That quote is from Tesla, in the linked article. That says the wheel can fall off.