From Wikipedia:"Such defeat can be attributed to various shortfalls in simulation capabilities and design that significantly hindered Blue Force fighting and command capabilities. Examples include: a time lag in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance information being forwarded to the Blue Force by the simulation master, various glitches that limited Blue ships point-defense capabilities and error in the simulation which placed ships unrealistically close to Red assets."
It definitely seems like there were issues with RedFors achievments. But the response is still ridiculous. I would have also resigned in ReFor's shoes.
> The cannonball crashed into the church and went through a first wall. It then ended on the altar of the Chapel of the Virgin. [...] The cannon ball was walled into the left wall of the Chapel and a commemorative epigraph was added to it.
It wasn't showing the wall where it had crashed through, it's showing where the ball has been mounted into the wall for display.
I think the fact that this happens on HN, where the users are generally more tech-savvy is signaling that trust in media in the online age is in severe decline.
As AI gets better (and there seems no reason to believe it won't for video production) believing what you see online (or on the TV, which already tends to source video for some events from phone footage) will no longer really be a thing.
We have been in a sort of post-truth world for some time but this is a whole new level. Maybe we will go back to newspapers? Physical print can't be switched on you 1984 (the book) style and is delayed enough for there to be some fact checking.
The fact that it was a brand new account just means HN is susceptible to bot accounts with these tech savvy people using AI to make those bots. When the AI accusations are from new accounts like this, I don't think it speaks too much about HN comments as the GP thinks. Not being able to understand that the account is new doesn't say much about the GP either
TBH, some of the text accompanying the photos has the stench of AI-generated text all over it - for instance, the phrase "wasn't just" shows up three times, each time as the exact same sort of negative parallelism. I can understand why someone might be suspicious about the images.
This site has gone full Tower of Babel. I've seen at least a thousand "AI comment" callouts on this site in the last month and at this point I'm pretty sure 99% of them are wrong.
In fact, can someone link me to a disputed comment that the consensus ends up being it's actually AI? I don't think I've seen one.
You know how the chicken sexers do their thing, but can't explain it? Like they can't write a list of things they check for. And when they want to train new people they have them watch (apprentice style) the current ones, and eventually they also become good at doing it themselves?
It's basically that. I can't explain it (I tried listing the tells in a comment below), but it's not just a list of things you notice. You notice the whole message, the cadence, the phrases that "add nothing". You play with enough models, you see enough generations and you start to "see it".
If you'd like to check for yourself, check that user's comment history. It will become apparent after a few messages. They all have these tells. I don't know how else to explain it, but it's there.
Yeah on a second look GP might actually be on to something here. Jackfranklyn only makes top level comments, never dialogs with anyone, and I count at least 3 instances of "as someone who does this for a living" that are too seperated in scope to be plausibly realistic.
You might notice I wasn't responding to your specific claim about a particular comment but to a later post by a different poster commenting on a wider phenomenon. Perhaps stop trying so hard to insert the idea you want to argue against into posts where it doesn't actually exist just so you can have something to argue about. (Especially given there are many direct responses to your post actually arguing with your claim that you could instead argue with.)
The definition of what we see progress in with LLMs as anything akin to intelligence is your supposition, though.
It's a view I don't share at all. I don't see anything that could be even remotely considered intelligent under any reasonable definition of the term. Useful in places, yes. Intelligence, hard no. So the question of whether it will approch or surpass human intelligence makes no sense to me, because the technology and its progress are in an entirely different dimension and unrelated to that idea or goal.
It definitely seems like there were issues with RedFors achievments. But the response is still ridiculous. I would have also resigned in ReFor's shoes.
reply