In the age of unlimited and very fast content production (for any media, code, images, music, text, or otherwise), I think content curation like this may be more desired than ever.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but personally it would lower the burden on me so much to have a curated list of *awesome* projects.
The fact that another person has taken from their time, so the hundreds or thousands of people reading this list don't have to do the same amount of investigation to figure out if a project is truly awesome, is in itself awesome.
Exactly good awesome lists have always been and will be the "goldmine" of curated resources. Not only these, I see all slow paced thoughtfully put in content as such. Like take StackOverflow for example. But it's really unfortunate to see people give up.
Maintaining these lists USED to be a lot easier though.... Once you found a good resource, you could generally chuck it into the list and, for the most part, expect it to continue to be 'good'.
Now, good resources can turn into bad resources much more quickly, so maintenance + keeping track probably requires a lot more effort.
Yes indeed this article points at some flaws but none of which I think are existential, popular lists becoming outdated and unmaintained whilst also being bombarded with crap is the norm
Excluding the Google AI summaries included with every search, most requests are likely going to be coming from enterprise users using it for code.
So, probably no.
Personally, I can't stand default LLM writing. I found out about this skill https://github.com/ayghri/i-have-adhd That I actually copy-pasted into the default instructions for Claude.
It's night and day, I wouldn't have been able to use it if it wrote in its default style.
It can be a bit weird because when it outputs a list it asks you to report on the first item (and usually it's stuff so small I do all the steps before writing to it again).
I only saw pangram being mentioned on HN. How good is it in general ? And what do they use to check if a text is AI Generated, the text watermarks from big models ?
it is very good, but keep in mind it'll also flag text edited with grammarly. Maybe not the same as copy and dumping a claude response, but still normalizes the authors voice with AI.
In my experience, it can have significant false positive. It's pretty good at telling you when something is NOT written by an LLM, but when it says something is, I take it with a big grain of salt.
That's how the earlier image generation models worked. You had one ai to generate images, and one to understand if it's a fake generated image or a real one (like, you have a real image of a dog, use the ai to generate an image of a dog, and pass both to the ai trying to see if it knows which is which). They both start out bad, but evolve together.
Models are trained on ridiculous amounts of human-written text, but their outputs are pretty easy to recognize as not human written. Pangram explains some of the reasons for this in a blog post.[1]
The problem with using Pangram in a feedback loop is that Pangram only reports whether it thinks the text is written by AI or not. It doesn't report whether the text makes sense, or whether it contains errors in spelling or grammar. So when people try to pair AIs with Pangram, the quality of the output tends to degrade to the point where it's not useful.
Basically, it's a harder problem to get an AI to accomplish some goal (such as writing a blog post) while also having its output mimic human text. To use an analogy, it's like building a stealth aircraft with the same speed, maneuverability, range, and payload as a non-stealthy aircraft. Even with a much larger budget, it's not always feasible.
It’s a sad state of affairs that people feel the increasing need to be on guard RE bot usage and LLMs in online conversations.
I do understand people don’t want to engage with bots but it feels absurd and a bit dystopian that I’m even having to type this comment and defend my humanity…
Sorry, I didn't directly assume you were a bot, I'm not at this stage of disbelief (yet).
I just wanted to make a small joke response, because obviously you pointed out a real issue with the README that the human who prompted it would have also flagged if they had read it.
> it feels absurd and a bit dystopian that I’m even having to type this comment and defend my humanity
There's also a lot of bot spam on HN, so green usernames make people suspicious, but I agree...
reply