[HN Gopher] The first 40 months of the AI era
___________________________________________________________________
The first 40 months of the AI era
Author : jpmitchell
Score : 75 points
Date : 2026-03-28 18:42 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lzon.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (lzon.ca)
| sudo_man wrote:
| Bro but... you now are having a business is planned by a paid
| chatbot, they can shutdown anytime or make it more expensive,
| also it is imposiable to get something new, you are copying for
| somewhere else, maybe what claude is copying is having a
| copyrights on it, like a leaked code and etc, also your brain
| will slowly shutdown from thinking about 'business' so you will
| hevaly relays on claude in the future :)
|
| My friend is trying to do the same, the Docker stack he made for
| his SaaS is really amazing, it is following the standards from
| the ancient age.
| fnord77 wrote:
| > you now are having a business is planned by a paid chatbot,
| they can shutdown anytime or make it more expensive
|
| Local models are about 25 months behind the current SOTA. If
| that holds, businesses won't need the paid models for many
| things.
| aidos wrote:
| > To what degree did I expand scope because I knew I could do
| more using the AI?
|
| Someone at work recently termed this "Claude Creep". It's so easy
| to generate things push you towards going further but the reality
| is that's you're setting yourself up for more and more work to
| get them over the line.
| ares623 wrote:
| And just like that, a new term has been coined.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Do you regularly find text content that you know is AI written
| (but is not marked as such)? Because honestly I don't, and it
| must exist in decent quantity by now. Or perhaps it's still
| sparse?
| htnthrow11220 wrote:
| I see it all the time in basically every form of text
| communication. What makes you think you are not seeing it?
| etherus wrote:
| Have a look here [1] and here [2] - I think they are good
| resources, but fallible in the long run. I think yes, I do,
| often confirmed by communication with people I know (i.e. i
| suspect they have used AI to make something -> I ask). This
| falls victim to confirmation bias, though. I suspect a
| nontrivial amount of writing I read is AI generated without me
| realising, and I'm wary also of falsely flagging AI-generated
| content that is actually from humans.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAI_or_not_quiz
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASigns_of_AI_writin...
| H8crilA wrote:
| Okay, but the answers in [1] look something like:
|
| AI generated. Some of the clues include:
|
| - Most obviously, a failed ISBN checksum
|
| - Other source-to-text integrity issues; for example, the WWF
| source says very little about Malaysia specifically, only
| mentions Sunda tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica), and does
| not mention tapirs at all
|
| - Very short yet consistent paragraph length
|
| - Generic "see also" links, one of which is redlinked
|
| This is not the sort of thing that I pay attention to unless
| I'm doing detailed research. And even then I'd probably have
| a bot check these for me, ironically, since it's such a
| mechanical job. At the very least detecting AI like this
| requires conscious effort.
| insin wrote:
| Literally every day from green accounts on Hacker News, and in
| many, many TFAs.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| Yes, here, reddit, X, at work in people's emails and status
| reports.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Yes, often, and often here on HN or Substack if I point it out,
| it doesn't lead to anything good. Many don't recognize it, many
| do, the author gets defensive etc.
|
| This article doesn't have the tells, it looks human written.
| ivanjermakov wrote:
| > 40 months
|
| Not counting from 1971s DARPA? Sorry I'm allegric when LLMs being
| called AI like nothing existed before it.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| Could the "LLM" of 1971 DARPA produce working code that it
| translated from a legacy codebase to Java and this within a
| short timeframe? ;-)
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Doesn't it all look like child's play though?
| insin wrote:
| *LLM
| tkgally wrote:
| Nice observation about AI-generated content:
|
| > I've had the idea that from a social perspective it'd be
| regarded like _plastic surgery,_ in that it only looks weird when
| its over-done, or done _badly._
| OrangePilled wrote:
| This is a sound personal assessment.
|
| The section about being "glazed" into action resonates. Hidden
| within this concept I think is something profound about human
| motivation, innuendo and all.
|
| > AI generated prose is at best boring, and at worst genuinely
| unappealing. I'm continually tempted, because in theory it should
| work well. The AI has perfect spelling and grammar, has more than
| enough context to produce article-length content, and can do in
| seconds what takes me hours.
|
| I have a thesis in mind...that there is something fundamental to
| the human spirit that relishes a sort of friction that LLMs
| cannot observe or reproduce on their own.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-28 23:00 UTC)