Rendered at 20:31:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
Toutouxc 2 hours ago [-]
I feel like the world has lost 30 IQ points over the last two years. I can’t think of a better way to describe it, the dumbing down of everything is palpable and accelerating.
mmarian 2 hours ago [-]
IQ levels are same as before, it's just easier to spot differences.
dr_dshiv 19 minutes ago [-]
Oddly, getting spotted for being dumb might be intelligent.
As I click another AI generated ad to tell which company could possibly have so little integrity…
kmoser 3 hours ago [-]
To be technical, what he read wasn't prompt, it's part of the AI's response to the prompt.
But yes, it's a giant tell that politician used AI to write his speech, and he didn't thoroughly edit the response when preparing the final draft.
phtrivier 3 hours ago [-]
No, that politician trusted some poorly paid staff to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).
The staff used an LLM and did not bother to check (or got their check wrong.)
One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence should be in proportion to the gravity.
gitonup 2 hours ago [-]
There's a lot to unpack here.
> that politician trusted some poorly paid staff
- I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result?
> to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).
- Is procedure not his job as a politician?
- If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?
> One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence [sic] should be in proportion to the gravity.
- Which is which?
- Which has more gravity and why?
- What consequences are you envisioning, in both cases?
- If, as I suspect, the consequences are lesser (proportionally) for the politician himself, what if any deterrents can be put into place to stop that behavior? After all, he manages his staff, in theory.
Toutouxc 2 hours ago [-]
The slop jockey failed to deliver a cleaned up speech. The politician failed to proofread it or even just skim it once before giving the speech. The journalist failed to understand the difference between a prompt and LLM output.
Every single level failed here. Nothing works anymore. No one cares about anything making sense. I want fucking out.
jareklupinski 2 hours ago [-]
> "bro there's no way he's gonna read this"
< "cmon do it bro it'll be so funny"
spwa4 27 seconds ago [-]
Don't attribute to malevolence what can be adequately explained by large amounts of stupidity.
netsharc 2 hours ago [-]
Encouraging that news.com.au (a Rupert Murdoch shop) staff can't tell between AI prompt and response...
I would rather speak to this man than anyone reading anything AI-written
onraglanroad 2 hours ago [-]
Many comments pointing out this is part of the response rather than the prompt.
But the whole speech is the response. What do you call the bits at the start "Certainly, I can write a speech in this style" type thing, and at the end "Would you like to learn more about political speech writing?"
Perhaps something like "AI tells" but perhaps there's already an industry term.
Edit: hadn't watched the video, this is the former "response to prompt" type tell.
jiveturkey 11 minutes ago [-]
That is the video title, but I think it should be paraphrased here to be more correct given our highly technical audience. The politician is actually reading an unedited AI response, which includes "editors notes" or maybe you could call it meta-content.
yagudaev 3 hours ago [-]
* AI Response. Not prompt.
I was expecting him to read a proper prompt. The prompt would be what he would tell the AI system.
“You are a speech writer, an expert on XYZ… your task is to write ABC…”
It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai. And agree we can replace many of them with AI. At least we will have the opportunity to talk to the ai directly about concerns.
customguy 2 hours ago [-]
One very tiny silver lining in all this will be leaked prompts. E.g. we all know how a non-apology reads, and call them out as such already, but when you see "write a really contrite apology without actually conceding anything while subtly casting doubt on the character of those making the accusations, but in a way that seems really open and constructive" it'll hit different still, I think.
chrisjj 2 hours ago [-]
> It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai.
What is not too bad about him using "AI", exactly?
thisisauserid 2 hours ago [-]
> Here's a more natural flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech rather than a series of short points.
650 2 hours ago [-]
I have both experienced and hear my coworkers across the tech industry complaining about having to parse slop from their peers, management and juniors they work with. AI comments on their merge requests that sound right, but are subtly incorrect and irrelevant that add to their cognitive load. PRD (Product Requirements Document) slop from PM's that are adding features for the sake of it and is essentially busy work. Leadership asking to add AI to evaluate employees and dashboards out the wazoo.
The floor has been raised for sure, and I am writing less boilerplate than before, and am able to diagnose bugs in my work quicker, but the amount of people that seemingly just copy and paste the AI output without critically thinking is causing me distress. There are seemingly no consequences either, more AI = more good.
tysilva 2 hours ago [-]
This is our new normal. It's not necessarily interesting. But you have to expect nearly everyone is using AI at this point.
add-sub-mul-div 2 hours ago [-]
It is actually darkly fascinating how eager so many people are about racing towards NPCdom.
llg-312g 2 hours ago [-]
If he only reads the prompt and the RNG state of the prompt time it might be an improvement. Now people will claim that the RNG is sentient.
seydor 3 hours ago [-]
politicians are one of the easiest jobs to replace with AI
margalabargala 2 hours ago [-]
We've had the technology to replace what the public percieves as the job of politicians for decades.
2 hours ago [-]
dwb 3 hours ago [-]
I really hope you’re joking, but it’s hard to tell on here!
nvme0n1p1 2 hours ago [-]
Indeed. Manual dexterity on a bipedal robot is still in its infancy compared to LLMs. We'll need another breakthrough or two before we have robots that can play golf and schmooze with other rich robots all day.
big-chungus4 3 hours ago [-]
Why exactly is that bad?
paulryanrogers 3 hours ago [-]
They care so little they don't even bother to proofread once, or lack enough intelligence to distinguish a prompt meant for a machine from a speech to inform/inspire/influence a human audience.
ajs1998 3 hours ago [-]
It's a red flag. Even if they agree and understand whatever they copied from chatgpt, they were too lazy to clean up its output. Are they also too lazy to read the news or does chatgpt summarize their articles too? AI people are like emperors without clothes. Totally embarrassing to witness.
This is bad because it's only getting harder to trust people. This is not someone I would want representing me. Although I'm not thrilled about any of my representatives anyway.
nvme0n1p1 2 hours ago [-]
You're absolutely right. Sure, I'll help you write a Hacker News comment explaining why politicians should have functional mental faculties and a coherent understanding of what they do during the course of their jobs and how their actions affect their constituents.
3 hours ago [-]
npodbielski 3 hours ago [-]
Policy influence idea: find out who are the assistants of policians and what ai assistant, subscription they use and give them different answers than to everyone else. You do not have to even corrupt them.
morkalork 3 hours ago [-]
Now identify voting blocks amongst your users and do it on a national scale.
tamimio 3 hours ago [-]
I knew it would be Canada before even opening the link, what a total embarrassment!
clbrmbr 2 hours ago [-]
Mais par contre, Canada also has some tremendous senatorial committees. They asked real questions of Hinton.
As I click another AI generated ad to tell which company could possibly have so little integrity…
But yes, it's a giant tell that politician used AI to write his speech, and he didn't thoroughly edit the response when preparing the final draft.
The staff used an LLM and did not bother to check (or got their check wrong.)
One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence should be in proportion to the gravity.
> that politician trusted some poorly paid staff
- I assume that politician is the one / main person in charge of doling out payments. Does that mean they share guilt/responsibility for the result?
> to write a boring procedural speech while he was doing something (hopefully more useful).
- Is procedure not his job as a politician?
- If not, what is his job / the more useful thing?
> One of them is guilty, the other one is responsible, the conséquence [sic] should be in proportion to the gravity.
- Which is which?
- Which has more gravity and why?
- What consequences are you envisioning, in both cases?
- If, as I suspect, the consequences are lesser (proportionally) for the politician himself, what if any deterrents can be put into place to stop that behavior? After all, he manages his staff, in theory.
Every single level failed here. Nothing works anymore. No one cares about anything making sense. I want fucking out.
< "cmon do it bro it'll be so funny"
I would rather speak to this man than anyone reading anything AI-written
But the whole speech is the response. What do you call the bits at the start "Certainly, I can write a speech in this style" type thing, and at the end "Would you like to learn more about political speech writing?"
Perhaps something like "AI tells" but perhaps there's already an industry term.
Edit: hadn't watched the video, this is the former "response to prompt" type tell.
I was expecting him to read a proper prompt. The prompt would be what he would tell the AI system.
“You are a speech writer, an expert on XYZ… your task is to write ABC…”
It’s not too bad, at least he is using ai. And agree we can replace many of them with AI. At least we will have the opportunity to talk to the ai directly about concerns.
What is not too bad about him using "AI", exactly?
The floor has been raised for sure, and I am writing less boilerplate than before, and am able to diagnose bugs in my work quicker, but the amount of people that seemingly just copy and paste the AI output without critically thinking is causing me distress. There are seemingly no consequences either, more AI = more good.
This is bad because it's only getting harder to trust people. This is not someone I would want representing me. Although I'm not thrilled about any of my representatives anyway.