The way I read it, GP is saying that the Vatican's influence reduces such unethical distribution of medical information. Your response reads like a rebuttal, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say, nor rebut.
>in most EU countries is that the Vatican still has control over the board of a very surprising number of hospitals.
>Needless to say, the EU governments really hate that
> if the government wants the Vatican out of the board ... they have to increase spending on that hospital, often by a lot. I'd call them "Vatican hospitals"
> one thing government and the Vatican really agree on is that they do not want patients to know the underlying financial arrangements around hospitals
> in many cases it's quite difficult to find who controls a hospital even though it's technically public information)
I am responding to these somewhat "breathless" statements that imply more than they delineate. My rebuttal is that these words frame a kind of inquiry that is common among conspiracy-attracted commentors.
The subject deserves more rigor and less insinuation IMO.
Where I currently live has about the same climate as it did 20 years ago. More variability, I think (people started complaining about weird harvest times about 10 years ago, and we're now all used to chaotic year-on-year yields), but roughly the same averages. Flood infrastructure needs maintenance, but not a redesign. However, the behaviour of the migratory wildlife has changed, and you only have to travel a few dozen miles before you reach somewhere that has needed to make significant changes to their traditional climate-related infrastructure.
"A lot" doesn't mean all, and "my home isn't an example!" doesn't disprove the claim.
What's exhausting is getting through a ten-paragraph article and realising there was only two paragraphs of actual content, then having to wade back through it to figure out which parts came from the prompt, and which parts were entirely made up by the automated sawdust injector.
That's not an AI problem, it's a a general blog post problem. Humans inject their own sawdust all the time. AI, however, can write concisely if you just tell it to. Perhaps you should call this stuff "slop" without the AI and then it doesn't matter who/what wrote it because it's still slop regardless.
I completely agree with your parent that it's tedious seeing this "fake and gay" problem everywhere and wonder what an unwinnable struggle it must be for the people who feel they have to work out if everything they read was AI written or not.
It used to require some real elbow grease to write blogspam, now it's much easier.
I hardly ever go through a post fisking it for AI tells, they leap out at me now whether I want them to or not. As the density of them increases my odds of closing the tab approach one.
It's not a pleasant time to read Show HNs but it just seems to be what's happening now.
It never used to be a general blog post problem. It was a problem with the kinds of blogs I'd never read to begin with, but "look, I made a thing!" was generally worth reading. Now, I can't even rely on "look, I made a thing!" blog posts to accurately describe the author's understanding of the thing they made.
Yeah, I discovered that after I wrote the comment. Very glad to see that Ruffle + WASM has allowed the site to be resurrected nearly identical to how it used to look, so I can show my kids the same goofy stuff that was such a hit with my own group of friends in college.
> But what do I do with them? How do I use that evidence to hold news media to account?
Contact their rivals with the story, have them write a hit piece. "Other newspaper is telling porkies: here's the proof!" is an excellent story: not one I'd expect a journalist to have time to discover, but certainly one I'd expect them to be able to follow up on, once they've received a tip.
That’s not how publishing works. News outlets (especially those of roughly similar political leaning) very rarely call out each other’s misconduct. In fact, they often seem to operate as a quasi-conglomerate rather than competitors.
If they're not doing real journalism, why are you paying any attention to them? There are hundreds of small journalism groups who will call each other out just as easily as collaborate, who care primarily for truth and secondarily for putting food on the table (and therefore rarely have anything to call out). Many of their journalists have quit (or been fired from) the big news organisations, or would have been snapped up 50 years ago but are presently unhireable.
For the record, I'm talking about actual journalism groups, not Substack blogs. Here's one (largely US-centric) list, a ≈dozen links long: https://hcommons.social/@zeblarson/115488066909889058. You almost certainly have local journalists who need your support, which obviously I cannot list here.
News has a business model: do actual journalism. I don't see much reason to fund the people who are giving me the same story as everyone else who received the same press release, with no additional details: I might as well subscribe to the press releases.
If copyright can be used to prevent the archiving of ToS documents, a copyright duration of 3 years would be sufficient. Not all objections to copyright boil down to "the Mickey Mouse Protection Act should never have passed!".
HN has also been taking a turn lately. Part of it is a large influx of new users, part of it (I suspect) is just a growing disenfranchisement with the technology scene. I'm partly to blame for this as well. I've tried to stop commenting most of the time since my first and strongest response has just been to express my anger and frustration at the direction most technology is taking.
No, because the replacement value of those things to others is very high, and generally outweighs Carrie Fisher's objection. But we should take her objection into consideration going forwards. The Lena test image is very easy to replace, and it's not all that culturally significant: there's no reason to keep using it, unless we need to replicate historical benchmarks.
If we stop using these things, and pass laws to clarify how the notion of legal responsibility interacts with the negligent running of semi-automated computer programs (though I believe there's already applicable law in most jurisdictions), then AI-enabled abusive behaviour will become rare.
reply