swores

> "India: 47M

> "China: 358M

> "Both countries have roughly the same population"

To save anyone else curious from looking it up - their populations are about 1.4 billion (1400 million) each.

It can be interesting to look at without implying that it ought to be evenly distributed by land space.

To be fair, I can see why they didn't realise that considering none of them are remotely funny.

"Trusted" means how people treated them, it doesn't mean the extent to which they deserved trust.

They are quite obviously suggesting that they think your comment was saying that, they're not expressing it as their own opinion.

Do you mean EE, or are you speaking from memories that are from a while ago?

Orange UK disappeared over a decade ago (merged with T-Mobile to become EE in 2010, then they stopped using the Orange brand in the UK in 2015).

It's not irrelevant in the context, you're just saying it doesn't interest you. Just because you chose to focus on one side of it, doesn't change the fact that you replied to a broader question of "How do you know you can discern AI vs human with high probability?"

And even if you had been right that the entire thread's context had been limited to just caring about false positives and not false negatives, it still wouldn't have been a problem for wat10000 to expand the discussion by talking about false negatives, too... they don't have a duty to only reply about the parts of a subject you chose to care about!

You could either just ignore the comment, or reply explaining why that side doesn't matter to you without trying to shut them down as if they did something wrong :)

Edit: Since you've mentioned Pangram a few times in other comments, FYI a lot of people (myself included) believe Pangram's accuracy & consistency to be bad enough that it shouldn't ever be treated as more than a gimmick.

> "Reddit seems to have reversed course with making users sign in as well (or my adblock has updated and removed the forced login modal or something.)"

I don't know if Reddit are doing it less now or not, but it's worth noting that it's always been somewhat hit and miss.

I suspect a mix of very data-driven testing (to try to show it to people who will login, and not show it to those who'll just bounce), and technical debt confusing things. But often it will vary not only from one person to another, but even for the same person between two different web browsers, or connected through two different IPs, or whatever.

Wow, what a great idea. Thanks for the link!

Obviously this is completely subjective, but to me that one you linked is SO much uglier than the other. I'd hate to have that on my wrist, whereas the one this whole submission is about I'd probably buy to replace my Oura ring if it had sleep tracking, heart rate monitor etc. rather than just step count

That's definitely a feasible explanation (and the one I would assume to be true for AliExpress).

But there is another, slightly less evil, explanation that I know at least some companies have pushed their apps because of: the thinking is that if you're on their website, there is less friction to open a new tab and search for a lower price from their competitors, than if you're in their app. Obviously it's hardly any different - opening a new app (the web browser) vs. opening a new tab in the app you're already in - but the theory is that there's a slight psychological difference.

Of course I'm not saying that trying to prevent your customers from searching for better deals is a nice thing to do. Just adding that data mining isn't the only reason for some companies to want people to use their apps.

There's a bit more nuance to it though, I think, because traditionally there has been more of a firm line between humans and tools.

For example, most people would agree with this line you wrote: "If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it." A pedant could say "woah hang on, that's ignoring the fact that actually the iPhone is the one recording the images that make up the film, how can the human get all the credit", yet nobody would actually make that argument when discussing who created the film.

Generative AI is pretty much the first time (maybe there are some niche contradictions to this claim?) we consider a tool to be contributing enough creativity to the process that we don't all agree "only one person was operating this tool, so that person is the sole creator" - but some people DO still hold that line, and do consider the human who wrote the prompt to be the creator.

And I don't think there's any objective technical metric we can use to say who's right, it comes down to our collective judgement deciding where the line is.

> write a fully-featured todo list app in JS

Would you mind sharing how you prompt this? I'm not a developer myself (just someone who occasionally dabbles, though most of my coding was pre-LLMs) and curious to see how much info/instruction you consider necessary to test them making an actual app (albeit a simple one).

That does help of course, but it overlooks the fact that anxiety can be an illogical mental health problem rather than just a logical well-founded concern. By which I mean even if the audience's reactions are completely ideal, it doesn't mean someone with bad anxiety won't spend lots of time in the future thinking of all the ways in which the audience might have been silently judging them etc.

I think there's a certain type that you're talking about that does tend towards energy drinks like that, but it's not true in the other direction, as that type is a minority of energy drink drinkers. Just a particularly noticeable one.

I've not been a fan of them myself since I was a teenager years ago, but I've worked with quite a few people in all sorts of roles, whose drink of choice was whatever their favourite energy drink was, either having one occasionally or between one and a few a day, while being completely relaxed, mature, and just nothing to do with any sort of stereotypes you might think of in connection with energy drinks.