Being given a 100% AI generated score for your own mental work hurts
Being given a 100% AI generated score for your own mental work hurts. It also hurts because the result is presented as absolute and undeniable, with no path for appeal or inspection. A decision presented as a black-box score with no insights revealed how the score has been computed or the specific reasons/patterns which triggered "detection" to begin with[1]... A score produced by a third party which inserted itself as middleman in the communication flow between writers and readers and claims authority and arbiter status over deciding what is slop and what is not. Another layer of statistical machine learning to detect patterns/anomalies of statistical means of language generation... In this specific case, I don't really care too much what these tools say. I know what I wrote and rewrote, over hours, and to the best of my ability (as non-native English speaker). The myth of computational objectivity prevails. For decades it was about blind belief in algorithms, now shifted to AI models. The wider public and most decision makers neither seem to understand the difference, nor do they care about the inherent dangers. Pragmatism at all costs. The genie is out and can't be put back. The problems (if acknowledged at all) are always treated as temporary minor hurdles rather than fundamental systemic issues. It's upsetting how Little Britain's "Computer Says No"[2] attitude and blind outsourcing of black-box classification and decision-making to machines has already been so extrem
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 3,928 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Mastodon Glitch Edition |
| Canonical URL | https://mastodon.thi.ng/@toxi/117031237659514917 |
| Publication time | Fri, 07 Aug 2026 05:33:13 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-08-07T05:45:41.615Z |
| Last seen | 2026-08-07T05:45:41.615Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher description |
| Excerpt method | Publisher-supplied description / RSS summary field. |
| Summary | None yet |
| Summary source text | description |
| Citation coverage | No WeSearch summary has been generated for this story yet. |
| Cluster | Dj5QeWASr2sz · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Mastodon Glitch Edition
