Even the URL captures the ubiquitous "honestly / genuinely / let me be up front" verbal tick that Claude can't resist. That is, "Rashid" likely couldn't even be bothered to come up with his own website name. I hate it.
Oh please, come on now. Grammar correction (which gets applied to text that you wrote) isn't comparable to LLM text generation. A tool assists a user in a task. LLMs don't assist you in writing: they do it all on their own. There's obviously a continuum here (at what point does a tool become so helpful that it ceases being a tool?), but I think I echo the general consensus.
> in it's current state, it discloses itself to anyone paying attention.
Well, unfortunately, I've still sunk a good bit of time into reading texts that I only realize to be AI-authored part way through. Plus, it's constantly being made harder to discern human-authorship.
Hyper-ultra-processed, yes. But, as others point out in these comments, a food's degree of processing doesn't determine its health value, although those two things are correlated.
Personally, my instincts would favor Huel over fast food, too. I'd be very interested in any study that tested this rigorously. Huel is far from anything "raw," but so long as all the nutritional components are still in there, one has to wonder if it's just as healthy.
This is kind of the point. We simply don't have a sufficiently good understanding of food and nutrition to be able to say "smoosh these nutrients ands other food derivatives together and you get a healthy food".
UPFs is exactly the smooshing, and is generally done to maintain palatability whilst saving money, not even in an attempt to make a healthy food. Sure, Huel has a different goal, but I'm not sure the end result is any different. Just because it's not hyper palatable, it doesn't mean it's healthy.
I just don't advocate, at least not without prompting; it's too maddening. That I'm vegan often becomes known naturally, and once it's established, people in the know tend to start bringing it up on their own. I hardly ever go into advocacy unprompted. I think this is more effective. Just by being present, you might spark the thoughts that lead someone to changing their mind... :)
Yeah, I have noticed this too. and I’m much the same now, over time my “advocacy” is mostly stating my reasons when asked. And sometimes bringing it up in online spaces.
it can be difficult, at least for me, to politely model in the face of what I see as a great injustice. But as you say, it can be maddening to do otherwise and still see no change.
So I do understand and support those who participate in a less passive advocacy as that can be effective for a different group. And keeps “our” voice in the mainstream, even if it is often vilified by popular culture.
Not to brag, but I caught it on the first sentence.
> ExactTeX is LaTeX with gradual annotation: you name the object you want checked, and what you do not name stays ordinary LaTeX, transported byte for byte.
This "byte for byte" phrase was the giveaway. You'll find it everywhere. I really detest these slop projects.
Good lord, why is everything glowing? Why is the header font so goofy? Why is there a big unnecessary "LIVE" label? That last one is such a bad Claude-ism, it evidently can't help itself even when the info being presented has zero reason to NOT be live.
I haven't tried this new app, but Windows Task Manager has always had the ability to pause. Hold down Ctrl and it'll pause updates. You can also set the update frequency to Paused.
Really? The website, you mean? :( I thought to myself, "what a cute, well designed webpage!" when I saw it. Maybe with time this site will stand out like those Claudeslop ones.
> I would not consider myself a "vibecoder", or jaithon as "ai slop"
> Additionally, around 80% of the raw code in this repository was produced with agentic coding tools
Not to be a party pooper, but even if the author wouldn't themselves describe it as "slop," the term still applies. It isn't really a "collaboration" if the vast majority of the implementation was carried out by one (non-human) party.
Individual authorship doesn't matter anymore, what matters is whether the user has control enough over the process to shape the output, and with recent AI agentic harnesses they do.
> It isn't really a "collaboration" if the vast majority of the implementation was carried out by one (non-human) party.
So then there is a ratio at which you would say it's a collaboration? What if I write the function signatures and allow the AI to fill in the implementations? What if I write half the implementation and the AI fills in the other half? What if I write comments and the AI fills in an implementation of the thing and then I review it and fix it manually, is that vibecoding or slopcoding? Are vibecoding and slopcoding the same?
Moreover: does any of that even matter if the end result is functionally the same either way?
I'm just trying to understand the acceptable way to use these tools because the opinions people have range from "not at all, never" to "all the time, always".
AI Slop is more of a convention than an actual definition. There is no standard definition (from what I know) that is widly accepted for the definition of AI slop: some people might say any use of AI is slop or others might have a more liberal opinion (like me) where if AI is properly used and generates good results, it is not considered slop.
In my personal opinion (you are 100% free to disagree as this is just an opinion and not fact) the 'hard' part of programing is coming up with the proper architecture, and ensuring the codebase is maintainable and is able to be built on top of. Additionally, the word slop in my opinion signals that the product is terrible. In my opinion, the product of Jaithon is not terrible (like some AI generated code is) and as I have not only been highly transparent with the use of AI and also used it with an appropriate maner with limits, by my definitions of it, this is not considered slop.
Additionally, the vast majority of the CODE was carried out by AI, not the implementation. Architecture & language automota were actually created in 2022-2023 while I was in 8th grade. AI was only used rather recently to speedrun development.
Hope this serves as further clarification by what my readme and my words ment.
Although it seems to have been a flop in practice, I do appreciate the spirit of making good use of tax dollars. I only wish the program was more carefully guided, since the motive behind it did seem genuine.
If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself. We know exactly what happens with these things, they eventually just make problems to try to assert a reason for their own existence, and never materially move towards fixing them.
> If GAO was half serious, it'd have set an expiry date on itself.
While I get where you are coming from, but the government isn't just a static thing that once you've done something it will stay like that. New procedures and jobs come and go all the time and will always need some form of optimisation.
It doesn't matter to keep something if you know for a fact it will go bad from the simple act of it staying around for too long, and/or having an incentive to keep itself relevant, by complicating/fueling the problem it was made to solve.
You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.
> You probably want to have milk one year from now. That doesn't mean you keep a jug/carton of milk for a year. That way, you'd really only reduce the chance, taking space from something valid.
I always crave milk. That is why I always have milk on hand and if I for some reason need more milk one day I get more milk than usual, but I will still always have at least a little bit of milk on hand.
That's one of Congress' responsibilities: the GAO is in the legislative branch, it's Congress' job to exercise oversight. (And it's all US citizens' job to elect people who they trust to exercise that oversight. If the GAO isn't closed down when it should be, that's a failure of Congress, no more, no less, and nothing else. But they seem to be doing their job just fine, unless you have some indications otherwise?)
(I don't think the GAO could set an expiry date on itself even if they wanted to, they exist by power of Congress, so only Congress could put an expiry date on them.)
DOGE was putting the fox in charge of hen welfare. The “spirit” was just a bare minimum facade so they could redirect funds towards billionaires bank accounts.
Sure there were some people involved in DOGE that had good motives, but overall they assumed that history began yesterday and that they were the only people that had thought about reducing the size of government. This was a recipe for disaster.
So, the U.S. would've had to supply foreign aid for eternity, then? Instead of appreciating the vast sums given by the U.S. and her taxpayers, there's only vitriol for the stream of aid money having been cut off.
There's the soft power argument that it was actually in US's self-interest to help. And for what it's worth, a lot of the vitriol is from taxpayers who supported that aid.
Well we worked real hard on not changing a regime, not disarming a nuclear power, and not protecting a trade route. How's the investment working out? Maybe if we bomb some more schools they'll be too scared to mess with us.
Also, even if we prefer hard power, if DOGE were honest or consistent and looked at how we're doing hard power, they would find at least as much fraud and waste as in social and soft power spending.
Eliminate Iran and you'll eliminate Russia. They need to be stopped.
You do not realize how much of suffering they are causing. Every day I bring kids to playground there's 1 or 2 Ukrainian family. Mother + child + grandmother usually. And it's likely to be worst year yet for them.
You wanna send condoms to Africa while there is active genocide happening in Europe? Send your money, there are plenty of ways to donate.
We could have been more directly helping Ukraine already if that was the admin's priority, instead of expending $165B (so far) on a bumbling losing sidequest invading Iran. What an insane proposition.
This admin has also been very publicly friendly with Russia and hostile to Ukraine every single time Zelenskyy has met with them.
My heart breaks for my Ukrainian friends and colleagues. It is unimaginable suffering. Especially since the US has been more enemy than ally to them. Neutral war profiteer off their hellish struggle at best.
America’s reputation in the world is not great, and deteriorating. Pulling back for these well-perceived/helpful initiatives while building up (and deploying) military force is not helping. It’s really not a well considered strategy, and the decision makers in Washington could really benefit from a more worldly perspective, imo.
Why am I in charge of speaking on behalf of HN? I could certainly be in the minority on this. Must you ensure that every space you enter hold to your exact opinions?
Another way of looking at it, is that this relatively small amount of money the USA was spending on US AID did amazing things to stabilize the world, which also benefits Americans.
The steelman argument is that it was the sudden process that people object to. But the steelman against that is that slow processes are used adversarially to prevent action from being taken.
In the end, the only people who seem to get outcomes are the ones who rush things. Everyone talked about getting out of Afghanistan and only President Biden did it. The objections were predictably ones against haste. But we’d been in there for a decade past the time we wanted to get out.
In this event, considering that most of this aid has not been replaced since by other participants one can only conclude that it would have taken at least this long in a slow rollout. Even an emergency of unbelievable proportions did not incentivize other nations to act. It’s unlikely they would have acted when faced with what looks like yet another austerity project that is going to be inevitably rolled back.
In such a universe, if USAID was going, it was only going to go fast. If it wasn’t going to go fast, it was staying.
And it’s generally true that people subscribe to the famous Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. Once we started providing AIDS treatment we were responsible, in their eyes, forever.
Given that, I think future charitable efforts should be evaluated in terms of such 50 year costs or so on. To save all the lives that US funding on PEPFAR saved we had to forgo an amount that would domestically have given us CA HSR. I think if you ask most Californians they’d rather have CA HSR than any charity program directed outside so in some respect we are just treating these people as our sin eaters.
It used to feel less bad when America caused an incident, because at least we helped people around the world in meaningful ways. Now there's really nothing. There's no underlying moral excuse to support the empire anymore.
If the US wants to be the most powerful country in the world, so that if benefits the most from a non-stop flux of wealth moving in from outside, that involves a cost, tiny as it might be.
The US decided that paying that cost of $0.10 in exchange for earning $10 was too much. So now it's saving those $0.10, and watching the $10 stop comming in.
This is an error all Empires commit a few years before falling from imperial status. As the British, themselves self-inflicted victims of the same mistake, say, penny wise, pound foolish.
I'm not rich, but I give a lot of money every year to charity, to try to help those who need help. The United States is the richest country in the world. It was also giving to charity to help those who badly needed help. It was a small amount compared to its budget, and we called it USAID. To protect the money from being scammed by those running the countries we were helping, the US itself administered those programs as much as possible. We know how much Trump donates to charity: bupkis (read about the Donald J. Trump Foundation) and I have a pretty good inkling that Musk donates even less.
Exactly. Since 2001, the amount of money we’ve spent on foreign aid is a DROP in the bucket between 0.7% and 1.4% of the federal budget; not much for us - but had an outsized impact on people in the greatest need.
It’s helped alleviate poverty, supported disaster relief, and even from a purely US centric motive helped to advanced our own interests by strengthening U.S. soft power abroad.
You're spending your own money. I'm pretty sure that if there was one member of your family that didn't have money for food or medicine, you'd spend it there instead of donating it, wouldn't you?
If you've absorbed the American teaching that "if you just work hard you'll be successful", then you'd have to believe the opposite: "if you're not successful that means you're lazy".
Even the URL captures the ubiquitous "honestly / genuinely / let me be up front" verbal tick that Claude can't resist. That is, "Rashid" likely couldn't even be bothered to come up with his own website name. I hate it.