Comment by Kaytaro
Comment by Kaytaro 2 days ago
The 2nd quote is when I realized this article was written or assisted by AI. Not that it's a big deal, that's our world now. But it's interesting to notice the subtle 'accent' that gives it away.
Comment by Kaytaro 2 days ago
The 2nd quote is when I realized this article was written or assisted by AI. Not that it's a big deal, that's our world now. But it's interesting to notice the subtle 'accent' that gives it away.
I'm not on board with accepting AI-written articles. This is an article with little to no human input, farming clicks for ad revenue, that doesn't even link to the forum post, which is far more interesting and has pictures: https://secondlifestorage.com/index.php?threads/glubuxs-powe...
The article contains little detail, and has lots of filler like the quote in the parent comment. It's highly upvoted on HN's front page, which is surprising to me because I think there is quite a bit of distaste here for low-effort content to drive clicks.
The thing the article is referencing is interesting, but the article is trash.
Agreed. We changed the URL to the original source from https://techoreon.com/a-man-powers-home-8-years-laptop-batte..., and banned the latter site. Thanks!
Edit: We also changed the title (submitted title was "A man powers home for eight years using a thousand old laptop batteries")
@dang, maybe we can get the link updated? This forum post is better in every way
> I'm not on board with accepting AI-written articles.
I haven't been on board with the "journalism" of the last fifty years, but this hasn't exactly prompted it to improve. Newspapers still have advertisements. Subscribers still have no say over editorial staff. The board still has say over the editorial staff. It's all fucked unless we can punt private ownership out of the equation.
What changed fifty years ago? You're pointing out issues that have existed for centuries.
Because it's presenting a bunch of smooth prose that utterly fails at logical continuity.
1. What point is the author trying to make? Leading off "Glubux even began" implies that the effort was extraordinary in some way, but if this action was "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably" then it can't really have been that extraordinary. The writing is confused between trying to make the effort sound exceptional vs. giving a technical explanation of how the end result works.
2. Why, exactly, would "removing individual cells and organizing them into custom racks" be "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably"?
3. How is the system's effectiveness related to its sustainable operation; why should these ideas be mentioned in the same breath?
4. Why is the author confident about the above points, but unsure about the level of "manual labor and technical knowledge" that would be required?
Aside from that, overall it just reads like what you'd expect to find in a high school essay.
Edit: after actually taking a look at TFA, another thing that smells off to me is the way that bold text is used. It seems very unnatural to me.
Nice try, ChatGPT.
More seriously, for me it's the "likely".
Using "likely" is indicative of AI now...?
Absurd.
The only thing as annoying as people using AI and passing it off as their own writing is the people who claim everything written not exactly how they are used to is AI.
> This task, which likely required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge, was key to making the system work effectively and sustainably.
This is obviously AI. The writer should know that it either required manual labor or it did not, not maybe (AI loves to not "commit" to an answer and rather say maybe/likely). It also loves to loop in some vague claim about X being effective, sustainable, ethical, etc without providing any information as to WHY it is.
That and it being published on some blog spam website called techoreon.
Edit: For fun, I had o1-mini produce an article from the original source (Techspot it looks like), and it produced a similar line:
> This ingenious approach likely required significant manual effort and technical expertise, but the results speak for themselves, as evidenced by the system's eight-year flawless operation.
What these sites are doing is rewriting articles from legitimate sources, and then selling SEO backlinks to their "news" website full of generated content (and worthless backlinks). It's how all those scammy fiverr link services work
But using "likely" is obviously AI in this context, or at least it's really, really shitty reporting.
This is supposed to be a news article, not someone who's hypothesizing about something that could have been. I mean, it either required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge or it didn't - no guessing should be required. If the author doesn't know, they can do proper research or simply ask the subject.
FWIW this article didn't immediately scream AI to me either, until the commenter pointed out the use of "likely". When you think about it, it absolutely becomes a fingerprint of AI in this context - it's not just that "likely" anywhere means it's AI.
Your inability to tell when things are AI doesn't mean other people can't.
Same phenomenon happens all the time with food or wine. One person thinks everyone is making up the subtle flavor profile comments and sneers at them. Everyone who can tell rolls their eyes. You can't convince someone that there's something they can't perceive besides just telling them.
I've had this experience with records: as a kid I rolled my eyes at people wanting to listen to music on vinyl cause obviously it was the same; as my hearing has improved I have found I can clearly tell the difference and definitely prefer it.
this part: "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably".
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43549073 (after changing the URL - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43552105)