I personally enjoy the errors and oddities in syntax and dialect which tell me something definitively is > NOT written by AI and help me understand the author better in such an anonymous space.

The second is gonna be a lot harder to enforce, as we soon (and probably already) don't know who we're talking to on the internet - a real person or someone's agent? Will calling spaces "human only" later be seen as discriminatory by agents? How will we actually enforce "human only" spaces? Will websites like HN start to provide an "agent only" discussion forum or filter in addition to the "human only" sections?

It feels like CC got nerfed after the 4.6 drop.

This is the safest way. You also want to disable auto update to version lock, which means using Firefox or Safari or loading unpacked if you use Chrome.

It’s obvious CWS has given up on oversight of these extensions. It’s a minefield.

A fun quiz for identifying AI content on Wikipedia. Decided a game format is more interesting than markdown.

https://tryward.app/aiquiz

Wikipedia publishes a community page about the Signs of AI Writing.

This article, covering elements of writing like content, language & grammar, style, and citations, is verbose and is intended for Wikipedia’s army of content editors.

Walls of text are boring. Games are more fun. I turned Wikipedia’s quiz into an interactive game. I failed miserably.

He speaks in the present tense, so I assume so. This guy seems detached from reality, calling[AI] his "most important relationship". I sure hope for her sake she runs as far as she can away from this robot dude.

> it's hard to go back without feeling like i would be willingly living my most important relationship in amnesia.

This made me think this was satire/ragebait. Most important relationship?!?

Another victim of AI psychosis. I think this is actually becoming a huge problem among tech enthusiasts and I’m increasingly worried about it.

it's growing among all groups, where the wave is leading depends on the adoption within demographics. I expect long term we will see similar patterns as we do with drug abuse and crime (i.e. high correlation with poverty and all the things tied to growing up struggling)

Normal people don't feel the need to characterize their own blog posts as "sane"

I built many products on Google PSE (Custom Search). Results were nowhere near as good as regular Google, but still useful. I usually needed to use another library to get the DOM content anyway. But it still was solid for grounding/checking data.

RIP, another one to the Google Graveyard.

your usage was in obvious violation of the terms of service. This is why we can't have nice things.

I struggled at first with trying to translate a technical framework (blind sigs/privacy pass) into a privacy feature end users would understand.

I ended up using the “casino” analogy to describe the new feature. Same thing, different words. The security knowledge stack is so dense that it helps to embrace analogies when explaining concepts to customers.

By “blinding” ourselves, we’re signaling to users that we’re making their data invaluable for marketing, analytics, or third party sharing. Think the EU “Reject unnecessary cookies” banner but on steroids.

> we’re signaling to users that we’re making their data invaluable for marketing, analytics, or third party sharing.

I suspect that what you meant to say here is that you're making user's data not valuable for those purposes, but what you've literally said is that you're making it incredibly valuable for those purposes.

"Invaluable" means "having incalculable monetary, intellectual, or spiritual worth"

Thanks for catching! I typed this up quickly so missed during a proofread.

Yes, we’re making this data not valuable by design, since it cannot be linked back to the originating user to report browsing history, etc.