undefined | Better HN

0 pointsboxomcfoxo27d ago0 comments

Nope. It was actually written entirely by Claude. https://boxobarks.leaflet.pub/3mj42airv3s2o#fingerprints-of-...

The framing of the essay around learning through "grunt work" is not deep, it's simply that this specific phrase appeared in two of the sources. Anything that looks like insight is plagiarised directly from the sources in some fashion. I've covered in my evidence the pivot phrases where direct summaries of the essay incorrectly appear to transition to the author's own ideas, but there are parts right through the essay that come from the sources. No deep thinking by the prompter required.

0 comments

squirrel27d ago

Thanks for writing that up. You convinced me that there was more Claude here than I'd thought, but I didn't see evidence that the author hadn't edited and supplemented, which is what I was suggesting. In fact, your last observation about correcting an erroneous date makes my point, not yours: Claude made a mistake, and the (human) author fixed it, thus improving the essay.

I certainly agree that the author should disclose the use of an AI, how much is human vs silicon, and clarify which ideas are his own and which are not. I've written to him to ask about that.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

squirrel27d ago

I certainly agree that the author should disclose the use of an AI, how much is human vs silicon, and clarify which ideas are his own and which are not. I've written to him to ask about that.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse