I will never understand why people post these clearly ai-generated articles under their personal name without at least disclosing they didn't write it. If you don't tell the agent otherwise, they have a very predictable markdown structure (these 5-6 word summary headers before every paragraph), a predictable length, and of course full of em dashes. Immediately removes credibility- no issues reading something that's ai-written but when you see these markers it just screams low effort. Like you're being duped, used some AI article to get traffic to their site and you fell for it.
I've been reading Bob's articles since he published in Infoworld. Could his next column be "Haha I fooled you - it was written by an AI"? I don't believe he would do that. Plus it'd be sophomoric - something that a man in his 70's wouldn't do.
> But the systemic risk is plain: when everyone is each other’s investor, supplier, and customer, one stumble can cascade through the whole ring.
We saw this in the early 2000's. AOL got most of it's online ads (revenue) from other dot-com companies. When the crash started, the first thing the dot-com companies did was cut back their ad spend. Which propagated through their ad agencies and into AOL. They were trading over $90 in 1999 and plummeted to $9 in 2002. Quite the fall.
When this bubble ends, someone is going to be holding the bag, and I suspect it'll be OpenAI (and similar firms). Datacenters can use their hardware for other customers (mostly). NVIDIA can go back to making consumer GPUs (which will be painful, but I believe they can weather that shift). But OpenAI is the middleman whose assets are software, employee skills, and now-worthless deals with other companies.
> I will never understand why people post these clearly ai-generated articles under their personal name without at least disclosing they didn't write it.
First, "ai-generated" is a huge assumption without any proof. The article could've been only spell-checked, or proof-read, or assisted by AI - you don't know. If you really think it was "ai-generated", prove it by providing the prompts that generated it. Lacking that, your comment is baseless.
Second, the author is whoever writes the prompts, anyway.
> they have a very predictable markdown structure (these 5-6 word summary headers before every paragraph), a predictable length, and of course full of em dashes.
Totally irrelevant peeving over form with nothing of substance.
> Immediately removes credibility... you're being duped... to get traffic to their site... you fell for it.
I don't know what generated that, but it's not an honest person. On the other hand, the original article is excellent.
I will never understand why people post these clearly ai-generated articles under their personal name without at least disclosing they didn't write it. If you don't tell the agent otherwise, they have a very predictable markdown structure (these 5-6 word summary headers before every paragraph), a predictable length, and of course full of em dashes. Immediately removes credibility- no issues reading something that's ai-written but when you see these markers it just screams low effort. Like you're being duped, used some AI article to get traffic to their site and you fell for it.
I've been reading Bob's articles since he published in Infoworld. Could his next column be "Haha I fooled you - it was written by an AI"? I don't believe he would do that. Plus it'd be sophomoric - something that a man in his 70's wouldn't do.
> But the systemic risk is plain: when everyone is each other’s investor, supplier, and customer, one stumble can cascade through the whole ring.
We saw this in the early 2000's. AOL got most of it's online ads (revenue) from other dot-com companies. When the crash started, the first thing the dot-com companies did was cut back their ad spend. Which propagated through their ad agencies and into AOL. They were trading over $90 in 1999 and plummeted to $9 in 2002. Quite the fall.
When this bubble ends, someone is going to be holding the bag, and I suspect it'll be OpenAI (and similar firms). Datacenters can use their hardware for other customers (mostly). NVIDIA can go back to making consumer GPUs (which will be painful, but I believe they can weather that shift). But OpenAI is the middleman whose assets are software, employee skills, and now-worthless deals with other companies.
I don't think it was AI generated.
Check his writing from 2022, it uses the same voice, the same formatting, the same style:
https://www.cringely.com/2022/03/29/how-to-quickly-end-the-w...
If that's not good enough, check this post from 2016: https://www.cringely.com/2016/10/31/heck-happened-apple/
Same voice, same style.
An Em dash is not a clear delineator of AI generated text.
Because the average person is incapable of telling that it's AI generated
> I will never understand why people post these clearly ai-generated articles under their personal name without at least disclosing they didn't write it.
First, "ai-generated" is a huge assumption without any proof. The article could've been only spell-checked, or proof-read, or assisted by AI - you don't know. If you really think it was "ai-generated", prove it by providing the prompts that generated it. Lacking that, your comment is baseless.
Second, the author is whoever writes the prompts, anyway.
> they have a very predictable markdown structure (these 5-6 word summary headers before every paragraph), a predictable length, and of course full of em dashes.
Totally irrelevant peeving over form with nothing of substance.
> Immediately removes credibility... you're being duped... to get traffic to their site... you fell for it.
I don't know what generated that, but it's not an honest person. On the other hand, the original article is excellent.