Much obliged.

I mean, I’ll applaud any push toward Linux.

I’m reminded of a time I was in a bar in Georgia at a conference. It was in the hotel, and a high-ranking editor for the then-reputable Washington Post bought me a beer. He let me take a sip before launching into how much “immature shit [I] need to get out of [my] system” before being ready to be “Post material.”

Where is any industry going to be in a decade, when no one’s been mentored?

This is four sentences that leads to a 404 source link.

I strongly doubt the writer is the problem here.

We can safely say that lied-about ideation is pretty common. When you have responsibilities and family and such, you can go into your dark place, pretending it’s all OK until it isn’t.

Separate Rolling Stone coverage here.

Chech your work:

It is rare to see something like this. We have their, there and they’re, but there isn’t a fourth option.

• Check
• Czech
• Cheque

Well, you don’t want to use birdshot with eugenics.

I never got a degree! I got roped into the college paper, and from there, well, I didn’t really care about my studies. Why worry about semantics and semiotics when you can tell 18,000 people what to think?

(yeah, I meandered into news after cutting my teeth in opinion)

Sure. That’s a specific use case and not likely a useful one.

When we start getting into utterances, though, we’re firmly in linguistics. Unless you’ve been passing bad checks.

As a former linguistics major, I find this to be horseshit.

Really, we optimize for the least possible amount of communication necessary. With a spouse, you don’t ask full questions. Early on, you might have to shoot a look, but later on? This is now ingrained. They’re offering the solution before you express the problem.

Actually, yes. They didn’t want me but almost universally wanted to help me.

There is no reason for you to care. I am informing users familiar with my writing and methods that this is now on my radar, but I can’t yet do it justice. I’m being honest about not being ready to perform analysis.

Those fucking Chinese, amirite? All they do is evil. While blockading Cuba is for humanity!

It is 23.43, and I can’t analyze this tonight. Ars has been good for a long while, and I enjoy their reporting. To have to reassess this is disappointing, but I’ve already had to feel this with the NYT and WaPo. Not exactly a huge loss here. But I want to fully investigate what happened ahead of reaching a conclusion.

Rest assured, I will reach a conclusion. I don’t think I’ll like the one I think I’ll find, but that’s journalism for you. I will withhold judgment until I’ve had a chance to fully examine what happened here.

I would hazard a guess that you’ve spent less time in a newsroom than I have.

So that I fully understand your argument, it is that other automation proves that what I posted is LLM output? Let’s sit with that for a moment. Your bullshit detector is accurate, but mine is not. This is essentially your thesis.

I’d workshop this for a bit.

What, you saw a couple of em-dashes and reached that conclusion? I would argue – emphatically – that people are using the wrong methods to attempt to unmask LLMs. They’re literally trained on prose written by humans. We still know how to write.

They are wildly different. First off, infatuation is generally unrequited. I’ve certainly been infatuated way more than twice. In many cases, they’d help guide me though difficult times as friends.

Passionate love? That’s on an entirely different level. It’s what you never chose because there was no choice to make. You’re helpless. This is now happening, and the best you can do is attempt to steer.