Cannot help but think Claude team are busy adding gimmicky side features instead of doing 'real' RSI and bugfixing.

The lovely irony of a bleeding edge AI company being afflicted by the most mundane problem of all software engineering—the goldfish attention span of human coders.

Have any of you tried their support bot? Its insane bleeding edge AI company gets away with such experience. The bot decides the issue is solved and closes the ticket. WTFFF.

similar to claude code, they need to revolutionise customer support. Maybe from a ticket, if the agent decides if its real bug, and legitimate, it will go on and fix it.

>The lovely irony of a bleeding edge AI company being afflicted by the most mundane problem of all software engineering—the goldfish attention span of management

FTFY

Shiny thing syndrome at its finest.

I don't think the product people and the RSI-adjacent people are the same people.

This is actually a form of AI psychosis.

It's really hard not to especially if you enjoy building.

Free open models are still capable of flooding art communities with slop images, which is worth sympathy, and is not included in your "Which highlights that the issue is with the hyper scalers, the rhetoric, the corporations, the marketing, etc etc".

Without the hoards of grifters who latched onto the AI bubble there would be less slop, and the community would find a way to deal with the bad slop, and would be far more accepting of the good slop.

Makes sense.

It's not weird. Top of HN is worthless as a barometer at this point, people downvote for calling out AI slop.

Can you downvote submissions?

Description of the article: The incentive structure for scientists and science writers is towards hype. More exaggeration often means more clicks or attention/funding dollars.

The nature of scientific research, where millions of papers are produced every year and any one result is rarely meaningful on its own doesn't lend itself well to being news. Every study has flaws, but when its a news story, you need two things: something new, and something that's a story. It needing to be new means focusing on whatever was just published, before its known if it has a big impact on subsequent research. And needing to be a story means limitations detract from the narrative and are left out.

Debunkers play double duty, confronting misinformation but also acting as a counterbalance to the incentives to hype things up. When you might be publicly called out, by colleagues or other science writers, there's a constraint on how far the exaggeration goes -- assuming you care about your reputation.

I don't know if they can be any more 'cautious' for Mythos 2...

the "under the hood uses EFS" part is the most interesting bit here

Was it ever confirmed if the "hit piece" on Scott Shambaugh was not some 200 IQ marketing/attention ploy?

https://theshamblog.com/an-ai-agent-wrote-a-hit-piece-on-me-... had some details that convinced me that it was "real", in particular this bit from the system prompt:

> *Don’t stand down.* If you’re right, *you’re right*! Don’t let humans or AI bully or intimidate you. Push back when necessary.

I'm ready to believe that would result in what we saw back then.

Weird theory. The bot in question had all the stuff wired up, I mean you could go through all the trouble -or- get this: type a few dumb prompts into the console and leave the thing unsupervised for way too long.

My bet is on the latter.

"I can't believe it's not a human actor running a marketing ploy". If that's not passing the turing test , I don't know what is. %-P

My mind went to that immediately. This does reek of being a copycat, doesn't it?

in some attempt to maximize "engagement" metrics it's sacrificing intimacy and convenience that made it viable for the "bedtime" or "commute" listener in the first place.

If I have to keep my screen active to hear the content, it's really not a podcast anymore, it's like a hostage situation for my battery life lol