All infrastructure for cars and the fallout from their pollution (don't forget the tyres) is heavily subsidized by the tax payer and not as cost effective as a tram or railway.
Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world with 87% of its population living in cities and suburbs. Being car dependent is a political choice pushed by the car industry for decades. Getting people into public transports, onto bicycles or their two feet requires reducing the vast space cities waste on privately owned cars. Super blocks that focus on active travel, less surface parking space and slower speeds are what is needed.
I can't name one but I can tell you these models keep getting stupider as they keep existing and their system prompts get inflated with what not to do. I have experienced this happen with Qwen 3.8 Max Preview where for the early days it was blasting through Rust code fine and then before the release it silently got replaced and started to suck hard. Claude still has the "blue button" problem so it is probable that a casual chat with it could have this exact outcome of forgetting what to do. I saw some models also have this thing where when you tell them a text restriction they first ignore it in thinking, creating the full text and then apply them in their thinking rewriting it fully causing your output tokens to be inflated.
Well yes, there are only so many attention heads (well whatever magical variant frontier models are using these days) that can attend to the context and so as the context grows attention becomes spread thin.
But with reasoning enabled I find that even with a large context that induces mistakes most of the time a decent model realises and corrects itself before output.
And it's always been known that prompting what it should do is far better than what it shouldn't, since just introducing "DON'T do X" into the prompt means that the tokens for X are present and can be paid attention to in the wrong way.
But even then I've used plenty of "Do X, not Y" recently, especially for tools "Use this for x, don't use this for Y" and models perform like 90% of the time.
I would be interesting to experiment to see performance curves given a restriction on reasoning tokens allowed to n% of context tokens and see if there's some magic number of "reasoning should be at least n tokens for a context of length p" even ignoring the complexity of instructions in the prompt itself.
Ran it through several testes, only one flagged a few sentences as AI, including the one you mention. Fair enough, it's unlikely that English is the (turkish in this case?) author's first language and a little AI help can't hurt here.
I learned a great lesson for a gamedev youtuber this summer: Use AI to give you a summary what you have to implement, what functions you'll need, what edge case you missed and then write it yourself. Putting this into practice helps me to refine the ticket I'm working on. With the last ticket I had to persuade the AI (Atlassian's Rovo in my case) that a new data model wasn't necessary and we can do it more elegantly with less code.
Many of us still have to figure out how AI fits into our workflow, letting it do all the work isn't it but asking AI to point you towards the goal and let it review/refine your work sounds a lot more acceptable to me.
Bad writing makes the reader stop thinking about what you wanted to convey. As unintuitive as it is for most people in this forum, AI writing smell is as bad as bad grammar. Doesn't matter how you get rid of it. Maybe even more AI can clean those up, but those unintuitive phrases that pop up in AI writing are going to be a hindrance for many people who would love for the focus to be on what they're presenting, not the sloppy way they've written it up
It sounds to me like you want to censor perfectly fine phrasing just because AI rolled the dice to use it. Let's not forget that AI learned to "speak" from people in the first place.
Not to mention that as people shift their phrasing to avoid being accused of using AI, the AI will keep evolving, training on the new phrasing and then adopting it, too.
I understand the language evolves, but evolving language just to sound different from AI feels like wasting effort better spent elsewhere. On actual substance of the message for example.
You can believe what you want. I don't censor bad grammar, but it's not good writing, and it will have negative effects on someone's writing and who will read it. You can have your fingers in your ears or you can adapt.
We're not talking about bad grammar, but sentences that are correct and sensible, and if you wrote them before AI, nobody would bat an eye. But because they are used by AI, these days they make people dismiss the whole piece.
It's not really different from dismissing people because they happened to use the same phrasing as Stephen King. You can't even tell if it's because they read Stephen King that much, Stephen King wrote it for them, and they are now trying to pass it as their own, or just coincidentally arrived at the same literary construction.
Whenever I see those threads, they usually don't discuss the merits of the writing. They claim that AI must have been used, so it's not even worth reading.
Books have been declared dead several times of the last quarter century, yet in the EU alone it's still half a million new titles every year and a 40 billion Euro market.
I've read a few of those articles in recent months, both in English and German, and I did read any book title that was rare. The Rare Book & Special Collection Div at the Library Congress considers books published before 1801 as rare. Searching for old books on abebooks is surprisingly hard but I didn't find any for less than 10 Euro and nothing in those articles suggested they were buying up anything but cheap books.
I had a neighbour once who was quite unhappy about how short their lawnmower cut the grass, I did show them the two adjustment screws to raise the ground clearance...
bbc.co.uk still allows listening to all stations live and yt-dlp has no problem to download shows, you just got to find your way to the correct page that doesn't trigger a redict to bbc.com e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qng7/episodes/player
BBC 6music has a lot of great DJs, Chris Hawkins being my favourite with plenty of banter for a 5am show. While it's just a Friday late night show: Ashley Storrie on BBC Radio Scotland and don't be surprised if you hear the same listeners sending in messages on both stations.
But then, they aren't commercial stations with less pressure. Whenever I have to listen to an Austrian (where I live) station I get bored. Even the public funded stations have commercials or, even more annoying, un-labeled advertising for the lottery.
You might want to ignore politics all day long, but rather sooner than later it's politics that will creep into your life and take an interest in whatever things that politicians mis-understand about your little niche.
Sometimes people just want to geek out and talk about technical things, this isn't rocket science, is it?
Yes, those people mostly do realize the importance of understanding and discussing politics. But that doesn't mean _every single_ thread must devolve into a political discourse, especially when those discourses have a general tendency to lead to nowhere. It gets real tiring real fast...
I am willing to bet my 20 cents that you don't talk about saving the environment every single time you eat. And the reason is much the same -- it gets tiring.
Anyway. If you want to make a political statement, why not do it in a more suitable thread rather than a thread simply about the release of a model? It's not like HN strictly bans political threads.
reply