Readit NewsIdentifying some of the truly high-scoring articles (>1000) should be rewarding, and 200 vs 400 points is a pretty big difference on hn
Poor man’s version of this which requires no training would be to evaluate positions at low depth and high depth and select positions where the best move switches.
Training neural nets to model behavior at different levels is also possible but high rated players are inherently more difficult to model.
I vibe coded this into a browser app, but the evaluation is slow around depth 5: https://camjohnson26.github.io/chess-trainer/
Still impressive nonetheless and I didn't know that this trick is sometimes used in Hollywood to extend underwater filming time. Avatar 2 comes to mind when I was impressed to find out Sigourney Weaver trained to hold her breath for 6 and half minutes in her 70s!
Coming back to the article, I'm disappointed that the details were sparse - how do they check whether the contestant is conscious? How does the contestant know what his limits are before passing out?
1.) probably human, low on style but a solid twist (CORRECT) 2.) interesting imagery but some continuity issues, maybe AI (INCORRECT) 3.) more a scene than a story, highly confident is AI given style (CORRECT) 4.) style could go either way, maybe human given some successful characterization (INCORRECT) 5.) I like the style but it's probably AI, the metaphors are too dense and very minor continuity errors (CORRECT) 6.) some genuinely funny stuff and good world building, almost certainly human (CORRECT) 7.) probably AI prompted to go for humor, some minor continuity issues (CORRECT) 8.) nicely subverted expectations, probably human (CORRECT)
My personal ranking for scores (again blind to author) was:
6 (human); 8 (human); 4 (AI); 1 (human) and 5 (AI) -- tied; 2 (human); 3 and 7 (AI) -- tied
So for me the two best stories were human and the two worst were AI. That said, I read a lot of flash fiction, and none of these stories really approached good flash imo. I've also done some of my own experiments, and AI can do much better than what is posted above for flash if given more sophisticated prompting.
I'm going to go with "Because it wanted a higher noon." was probably its best one of that set... though I'll also note that while I didn't prompt for the joke, I prompted for background on "climbing" as related to the sun.
I believe the problem with the joke is that it isn't one that can be funny. Why is a raven like a writing desk?
Personally, I didn't find the incongruity model of humor to be funny and the joke itself makes it very difficult to be applied to other potentially funny approaches.
Also on AI and humor... https://archive.org/details/societyofmind00marv/page/278/mod...
In another "ok, incongruity isn't funny - try puns" approach... https://chatgpt.com/share/68a20eba-b7c0-8011-8644-a7fceacc5d... I suspect a variant of "It couldn't stand being grounded" is probably the one that made me chuckle the most in this exploration.
I'm not entirely sure that a good response exists. I thought GPT-5's "to demand photon credit from the leaves” was very mildly funny, maybe that's the best that can be done?
To immediately turn around and try to bully the LLM the same way you would bully a human shows what kind of character this person has too. Of course the LLM is going to agree with you and accept blame, they’re literally trained to do that.
A couple of years ago I went into archives of Dutch newspapers to learn whether and how the famine of hunger in Ukraine (known as Holodomor) was reported back in 1930's. Fuck me, it was hard to read those excerpts. But it is what it is. OCR could've converted the font. The problem is, is the OCR accurate? Like, is my search with keywords having a good SnR, or am I missing out on evidence?
Personally, Times New Roman was likely the reason I did not like Mozilla Thunderbird. I have to look into that.