Seems so. AI is unlikely to make A16Z cheaper, if anything, we might see the first 4-and-40 fund from them next year. As long as the Senate is controlled by Republicans and the Fed is led by Warsh.
Parent comment doesn’t say it’s a waste of time; nobody likes the “ai witch-hunt” comments and they add nothing to the discussion other than “maybe it is maybe it isn’t.”
Pangram says mostly human
easy to trick pangram.
any evidence for that? genuinely interested. all the evidence I've seen is that Pangram has a very low false negative rate.
https://github.com/deepanwadhwa/ai_detector_fails/blob/main/...
Seems so. AI is unlikely to make A16Z cheaper, if anything, we might see the first 4-and-40 fund from them next year. As long as the Senate is controlled by Republicans and the Fed is led by Warsh.
I totally disagree? It seems quite human-written on the contrary; I don't see any strained metaphors, weird word usage or other AI hallmarks.
the graphs are pretty clearly made and labeled with AI
I don’t think that statement supports the original comment
> This entire essay is so obviously Claude
It might be worth reviewing the site guidelines around shallow comments of this nature. There are much more substantive elements to comment on.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
A comment preventing fellow readers from wasting their time is not shallow.
Parent comment doesn’t say it’s a waste of time; nobody likes the “ai witch-hunt” comments and they add nothing to the discussion other than “maybe it is maybe it isn’t.”