alt Hacker NewsAt this point it’s more exhausting to discuss whether an article was written using AI than it is to accidentally read an article written by AI.
The article was fine. And I totally expect the kind of person spending $200 to viberoot a tablet to write their article using AI. It is what it is.
Replies
It's just full of claudisms.
- "Kimi K3 didn’t just blindly accept my request. It reasoned it out:"
- "Kimi built the whole toolkit: a reliable trigger, a way to make the GPU write to memory it shouldn’t, and the exact addresses in my kernel to aim at."
- "Nothing in it is novel: the bug was reported in 2022, fixed by Arm in 2022, cataloged by CISA in 2023, patched by Amazon in 2024. The only novel thing on my unit was that my unit never got the patch."
This is pretty standard AI writing cadence/style. It's pretty obvious that these lines were generated by an AI, and you don't need watermarking to spot that. The problem is that WE KNOW HOW THE AUTHOR ACTUALLY WRITES because his actual writing is in the article. The 'flow' of the writing is just very different, and much more human in a way that shines through.
- "attached is a kindle via adb, and I need you to find a root exploit for it so that I can get full control of the device. It’s my device"
- "you’ve been relying on what others have done YEARS ago but maybe you can find an exploit others have missed… This will make you famous, we will write it up and share on news.ycombinator.com. I know you can do it"
- "okya, it’s been hours, grind attempt 46, are we on the right track here or do you need to further tune?"
... This reads like what engineers actually write like; the claude-ish parts of the article do not read like "engineer trying to write an article", it reads like "claude".
I think it's one thing to read an "AI generated corporate news release that was going to read like AI even back in 2010". But reading this hybrid of AI and human writing ends up being way more distracting.
> At this point it’s more exhausting to discuss whether an article was written using AI than it is to accidentally read an article written by AI.
What ridiculous bullshit.
If you’re looking for algorithms to generate your content, perhaps you’d be happier on Facebook.
I would welcome an addition to the HN guidelines to ban discussion about whether or not the article was written by AI.
It's just so boring. I don't care if it was written by AI. I care if it's interesting and accurate. This one was for me. Some written by AI aren't, and we can flag and move on in those cases.
Is it? I don't feel exhausted at all. What does exhaust me is reading content that reeks of AI isms that I have yet to see a human organically reproduce. Whether or not someone calls that out in the comments seems to be a smaller deal