Is Grammarly considered AI or not? I use Grammarly heavily because I use speech recognition in a stream of consciousness mode. It catches misrecognitions and language where I thought the right word but said a different one.
The below is the above once through Grammarly and a couple of written-by-me substitutions.
Is Grammarly considered AI or not? I use Grammarly heavily because I use Aqua speech recognition in a stream-of-consciousness mode. It catches misrecognitions and language where I thought the right word but said the wrong one.
It’s the reaction of the audience that matters, not what happened on your device that nobody can see.
If the writing ends up being the same as what you would produce if you carefully edited it yourself, it will be well received. If it shows any signs of being machine-generated rather than human-authored, the audience will sense it and react negatively.
We advise against copy+pasting any generated text into HN. If you think there’s some fuzziness around the definition of “generated”, well, see what happens.
"You're not a real ham if you don't use Morse code",
"You're not a real machinist if you use CNC",
"Your mechanical drawing skills are going to atrophy if you use CAD CAM.
"You should manually tape PCB layouts, so you have more control.
And another grandfather's favorite, "Why do you want to use the forklift? You won't always have one, and a pry bar and rollers are good enough, and you learn the value of real work."
I think there's a big difference between "your drawing skills will atrophy if you use CAD to draw for you" and "your brain will atrophy if you ask an LLM to think for you." Personally I don't judge people for being unable to draw, but I do judge them for being unable to think for themselves.
I can't believe I am about to post this comment, but I feel a compulsion:
The human mind adapts the best it can for its environment. While not being able to think for oneself is highly detrimental, there may come a time in the distant future where strong abilities to think and reason are less valuable/important. I know it may come off as absolutely ridiculous, but I do not think (no pun intended) that such an uncomfortable idea violates any principles of evolution.
I would argue our ability to think and reason about our environment has been paramount to the survival humanity. Just as hunting abilities were paramount to the ancestors of both my pet dogs.
However, both my dogs would make horrible hunters and would likely starve or die of exposure if left in the woods. But the ability to hunt has been useless to my dogs for their entire lives and for many generations prior.
Both my dogs still have remnants of a prey-drive, and I would argue humans will likely retain some ability to think and reason. But just because an ability is valuable now does not guarantee its future value.
The rise in literacy likely contributed great harm to the ability for one memorize entire epics like ancient Greek poets. However, is there really much value in the ability to memorize an entire Greek epic?
Not to mention, I have met some individuals in my life who would likely cause less harm to themselves and others had an LLM thought on their behalf (I'm kidding, of course).
If we run with your theory that the human mind adapts and thinking becomes less valuable that should be setting off alarmbells. What kind of world would be one where thinking is not considered a valuable skill. If I thought that was true I would be in favour of restricting AI use to certain workflows.
An L7 SWE TLM at Google once told me that he enjoys building software, he just doesn't like the data entry parts - that's why he was a manager and not an IC.
I think there are a lot of ICs who may need to re-evaluate what their job actually entails and what they're paid for.
2,000-year-old honey that's still edible? Oh, I so want to taste. My grandfather was a beekeeper, and I learned about the different flavors of honey as he harvested from different locations throughout the season.
It's fun to purchase honey from beekeepers a hundred miles away and see how the flavor changes. I personally like late-season honeys, which tend to have richer flavors from late-summer and fall flowers.
No, it's a lie. I researched it a bunch back in September 2024 (I was curious what the oldest possible edible food was*), and the Smithsonian knows it's BS (because I emailed them about this to get it corrected). I was able to correct Wikipedia, but I see Smithsonian hasn't gotten around to bothering, so this keeps making the social media echo chamber rounds...
To be clear: no edible honey has ever been discovered in Egyptian tombs. Every single anecdote is either unverifiable, or a garbled telephone-game description of some decayed residue which might have been honey thousands of years ago (and often on further chemical testing, proves to not have been).
The stigma against gambling exists because of the fallout when the gambler crashes and burns. The primary concern is for the dependents that the gambler is financially responsible for. The second order is the gambler's vulnerability to blackmail.
I feel that once a person starts gambling, they've just demonstrated they are not fiscally responsible. There should be a hard stop on increasing debt through loans or credit cards, and any income should go directly to the dependents and not pass through the gambler's hands.
Gambling is as destructive as DUI and should be treated with the same level of severity.
Is Grammarly considered AI or not? I use Grammarly heavily because I use speech recognition in a stream of consciousness mode. It catches misrecognitions and language where I thought the right word but said a different one.
The below is the above once through Grammarly and a couple of written-by-me substitutions.
Is Grammarly considered AI or not? I use Grammarly heavily because I use Aqua speech recognition in a stream-of-consciousness mode. It catches misrecognitions and language where I thought the right word but said the wrong one.
reply