Putting their following comments as a whole into Pangram gives 100% AI as result (Pangram is known to underreport sooner than to overreport):
Tap for spoiler
Nothing screams disruptive innovation like a billionaire scolding young people for not being excited enough about the technology making entry level jobs disappear. Apparently Gen Z should stop chasing what was cool five years ago and start chasing whatever Sam Altman needs investors to believe is cool this quarter.
Funny how »global allocation efficiency« always ends with everyone renting access from the company whose CEO wants to do the allocating. Local AI offers privacy, independence, and no monthly tollbooth. Apparently the real waste of RAM is letting people control what they own.
Wall Street spent years pricing every chip company as if humanity would soon need a GPU to make toast. Then Intel mentions that people aren’t buying overpriced PCs, and a trillion dollars evaporates. Apparently the most advanced semiconductor technology on Earth still can’t manufacture realistic expectations.
Of course it reeks of AI. We all write like AI now. Half the internet sounds like a chatbot trying to pass as human, and the other half is humans desperately trying to sound like chatbots. At this point, sounding natural is probably the biggest giveaway that you’re a bot.
Cisco just handed a 27 year old unlimited AI tokens and the keys to 98% of its codebase. Somewhere, a senior engineer is quietly updating their resume. Rewriting code is easy. Discovering why that horrifying 1998 workaround exists is the actual final boss.
Intelligence flagged a possible Chinese spy with access to Nvidia’s CEO, and the response was apparently to worry about Nvidia’s share price? So the chips are too sensitive to export, but the intelligence is too sensitive for the stock market? Very efficient system: national security gets the risk, shareholders get the protection.
The best part is that we spent 15 years cutting emissions just so a handful of billionaires could burn the savings teaching chatbots to summarize emails nobody wanted to read. Then they’ll sell us AI powered climate solutions, funded by taxpayers, to clean up the mess. Innovation really is a beautiful circle.
Google spent decades telling publishers to create quality content, then built a machine to read it aloud without sending anyone to the source. Now it’s shocked that the machine makes less money. Congratulations: they’ve invented a search engine that eats both its suppliers and its own business model.
Musk wanted to be Tony Stark. Somehow he ended up with Vladimir Putin in his fan club. The truly dystopian part isn’t the praise: it’s that one billionaire can turn critical communications infrastructure into his personal mood ring while governments keep treating him like a public utility with a podcast.
Damn I hate how I have to look out for this slop here of all places. Well they seem like they’re trying to be a bit too much of a fedi influencer anyway, so it’s an easy block
Imo the fediverse, and internet at large, has more than enough “content” already. I’m fine with more people sharing their takes, but if they’re going to do so in an already oversaturated space the least they can do is make it a quality piece that they actually made.
I don’t need all the fluff generated up around the quote. Just give be the quote and the bare take if that’s all you want to say.
You think the fediverse is oversaturated? That pretty crazy. Maybe you should curate your feed a little better, since, you know, it gives you the tools to do that.
If you’ve read about the network effect, you’ll understand that the more we have people posting here, the more people will view it as an alternative to corporate platforms, and the more the userbase will grow, in turn creating a larger network effect.
There are still dozens of niche communities that are either non-existent on the fediverse or completely inactive. Until we have active comms to replace all those subreddits that people say make it hard to leave reddit, the fediverse is by no means oversaturated.
The user you’re railing against isn’t posting anything obtrusive. Their comments are generally thoughtful. I don’t know why you feel the need to manufacture outrage against them.
I didn’t mean to rail or express outrage, I just don’t care for content or engagement that doesn’t have an author.
I think what sets lemmy apart, other than the our superior protocol, is the high quality of genuine interactions. I’m not interested in personally sacrificing on that for anything.
Like I would call this a high quality disagreement right here—I’m fully bought in because I recognise your username from other threads and recall you have meaningful things to say that I believe are genuine and may actually change or alter my opinion.
It’s not that I disagree with anything the other account was posting, but that I believe they’re faking engagement, they give off influencer vibes, and I’m not in lemmy for either of those things.
I mean, I’ve seen people calling them a bot but I’ve interacted with them and I don’t see what other people see. I don’t get it.
I agree that interactions on lemmy tend to feel pretty genuine, and part of that is because we’re mostly humans here. I wouldn’t want to change that, but I also wouldn’t want us to devolve into bickering over who’s really a human. If the content is good, I don’t see what the issue is. Especially if it sparks further discussion in the comments.
Your third paragraph is kinda flattering. I tend to think I run a little too hotheaded at times, but maybe it’s just because I waste too much time feeding trolls until they start getting under my skin. But it could also be that I have some form of online dysmorphia, and only remember the times I went overboard that eat away at me for days after. Either way, it’s nice to hear someone values my input.
I see your point about it not being about the content of the post but about who or what is behind the account, or what their motivation might be. I just don’t see why anyone would bother trying to be an influencer on the fediverse, because it doesn’t offer any incentive. No ad revenue, no partner sponsors, no karma-based content boosts, so no reason to farm engagement only to sell the account like what happens on reddit.
I mean some accounts do seem to try to astroturf an agenda, like all the week-old accounts we see pop up during election seasons, but that’s not what this seems like to me. I could always be wrong though.
Very interesting, the parent comment is exactly 49 words, and all of your comments are less than 50 words. Is that how you’re trying to thwart AI text detectors?
So you’re mixing different answers together and hoping for a valid result? It’s just as well that the top universities have now given up on this witch-hunt.
Putting their following comments as a whole into Pangram gives 100% AI as result (Pangram is known to underreport sooner than to overreport):
Tap for spoiler
Nothing screams disruptive innovation like a billionaire scolding young people for not being excited enough about the technology making entry level jobs disappear. Apparently Gen Z should stop chasing what was cool five years ago and start chasing whatever Sam Altman needs investors to believe is cool this quarter.
Funny how »global allocation efficiency« always ends with everyone renting access from the company whose CEO wants to do the allocating. Local AI offers privacy, independence, and no monthly tollbooth. Apparently the real waste of RAM is letting people control what they own.
Wall Street spent years pricing every chip company as if humanity would soon need a GPU to make toast. Then Intel mentions that people aren’t buying overpriced PCs, and a trillion dollars evaporates. Apparently the most advanced semiconductor technology on Earth still can’t manufacture realistic expectations.
Of course it reeks of AI. We all write like AI now. Half the internet sounds like a chatbot trying to pass as human, and the other half is humans desperately trying to sound like chatbots. At this point, sounding natural is probably the biggest giveaway that you’re a bot.
Cisco just handed a 27 year old unlimited AI tokens and the keys to 98% of its codebase. Somewhere, a senior engineer is quietly updating their resume. Rewriting code is easy. Discovering why that horrifying 1998 workaround exists is the actual final boss.
Intelligence flagged a possible Chinese spy with access to Nvidia’s CEO, and the response was apparently to worry about Nvidia’s share price? So the chips are too sensitive to export, but the intelligence is too sensitive for the stock market? Very efficient system: national security gets the risk, shareholders get the protection.
The best part is that we spent 15 years cutting emissions just so a handful of billionaires could burn the savings teaching chatbots to summarize emails nobody wanted to read. Then they’ll sell us AI powered climate solutions, funded by taxpayers, to clean up the mess. Innovation really is a beautiful circle.
Google spent decades telling publishers to create quality content, then built a machine to read it aloud without sending anyone to the source. Now it’s shocked that the machine makes less money. Congratulations: they’ve invented a search engine that eats both its suppliers and its own business model.
Musk wanted to be Tony Stark. Somehow he ended up with Vladimir Putin in his fan club. The truly dystopian part isn’t the praise: it’s that one billionaire can turn critical communications infrastructure into his personal mood ring while governments keep treating him like a public utility with a podcast.
Damn I hate how I have to look out for this slop here of all places. Well they seem like they’re trying to be a bit too much of a fedi influencer anyway, so it’s an easy block
Good to mention @kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com saw it through the structure of every comment:
I also come here for a slop-free experience, but I’m afraid that’s becoming impossible more and more.
Oh no, someone populating the fediverse with content and agreeable takes! The horror.
Imo the fediverse, and internet at large, has more than enough “content” already. I’m fine with more people sharing their takes, but if they’re going to do so in an already oversaturated space the least they can do is make it a quality piece that they actually made.
I don’t need all the fluff generated up around the quote. Just give be the quote and the bare take if that’s all you want to say.
You think the fediverse is oversaturated? That pretty crazy. Maybe you should curate your feed a little better, since, you know, it gives you the tools to do that.
If you’ve read about the network effect, you’ll understand that the more we have people posting here, the more people will view it as an alternative to corporate platforms, and the more the userbase will grow, in turn creating a larger network effect.
There are still dozens of niche communities that are either non-existent on the fediverse or completely inactive. Until we have active comms to replace all those subreddits that people say make it hard to leave reddit, the fediverse is by no means oversaturated.
The user you’re railing against isn’t posting anything obtrusive. Their comments are generally thoughtful. I don’t know why you feel the need to manufacture outrage against them.
I didn’t mean to rail or express outrage, I just don’t care for content or engagement that doesn’t have an author.
I think what sets lemmy apart, other than the our superior protocol, is the high quality of genuine interactions. I’m not interested in personally sacrificing on that for anything.
Like I would call this a high quality disagreement right here—I’m fully bought in because I recognise your username from other threads and recall you have meaningful things to say that I believe are genuine and may actually change or alter my opinion.
It’s not that I disagree with anything the other account was posting, but that I believe they’re faking engagement, they give off influencer vibes, and I’m not in lemmy for either of those things.
I mean, I’ve seen people calling them a bot but I’ve interacted with them and I don’t see what other people see. I don’t get it.
I agree that interactions on lemmy tend to feel pretty genuine, and part of that is because we’re mostly humans here. I wouldn’t want to change that, but I also wouldn’t want us to devolve into bickering over who’s really a human. If the content is good, I don’t see what the issue is. Especially if it sparks further discussion in the comments.
Your third paragraph is kinda flattering. I tend to think I run a little too hotheaded at times, but maybe it’s just because I waste too much time feeding trolls until they start getting under my skin. But it could also be that I have some form of online dysmorphia, and only remember the times I went overboard that eat away at me for days after. Either way, it’s nice to hear someone values my input.
I see your point about it not being about the content of the post but about who or what is behind the account, or what their motivation might be. I just don’t see why anyone would bother trying to be an influencer on the fediverse, because it doesn’t offer any incentive. No ad revenue, no partner sponsors, no karma-based content boosts, so no reason to farm engagement only to sell the account like what happens on reddit.
I mean some accounts do seem to try to astroturf an agenda, like all the week-old accounts we see pop up during election seasons, but that’s not what this seems like to me. I could always be wrong though.
Interesting: »Minimum 50 words required for accurate detection.« 🤷
Very interesting, the parent comment is exactly 49 words, and all of your comments are less than 50 words. Is that how you’re trying to thwart AI text detectors?
Which is why I used several comments instead of just one.
So you’re mixing different answers together and hoping for a valid result? It’s just as well that the top universities have now given up on this witch-hunt.