5 ms·

Is there an article about this written by a human? The “it’s not X. It’s Y” is too distracting.

consumer451 7mo ago
Waiting for the only human I trust in this space to report on this: https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/
- ChrisMarshallNY 7mo ago
  +1 on that. Thanks! I'm sure she'll be right on it...
  - consumer451 7mo ago
    She's far braver than most of us. I self-censor all the time on this website. Havel's greengrocer, placing the sign. Carney at Davos, his eyes uncovered.
- bdelmas 7mo ago
  You could also check Matt Levine from Money Stuff - Bloomberg. He is quite known on HN. The way he writes plus his great knowledge with no BS makes him my favorite (and only) journalist I follow. Edit: actually someone already found his article and posted it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160848
  - consumer451 7mo ago
    Thanks, but the link to the journalist I shared has been threatened multiple times, and yet she kept trucking through. I rarely say "avoid MSM," but in this case, in 2026, I would personally recommend avoiding your MSM recommendation. No hard feelings.
jlund-molfese 7mo ago
https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-of-insider-trading-that-helped-collapse-terraform-659e6993 https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-o... is a pretty normal one
necubi 7mo ago
Matt Levine has a take: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-02-24/ai-can-manage-your-mutual-fund https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-02-24/ai-... > Look, I am sorry. But if you go to Jump Trading and Jane Street and say “hello, I have an unregulated poorly designed mechanism that could lead to $50 billion of market value collapsing overnight, would you like to trade with me,” they are going to say yes, but their eyes are going to light up, you know? If at Time 0 you give them an extremely gameable system that can produce billions of dollars of profit, at Time 10 your system is going to be a smoking wreckage and they are going to have billions of dollars of profit. That’s their whole job, you know? I couldn’t tell you in advance what all the intermediate steps will be, and in fact in hindsight I cannot tell you what the intermediate steps actually were, how Jump and Jane Street made money off the collapse of Terra. But as a heuristic, I mean, come on. Terra was like “hello we have a balloon full of money, here is a pin, dooooooon’t pop the balloon.” Guess what!
- bsder 7mo ago
  How about a non-paywalled link? archive.is seems to be having issues today.
  - bb88 7mo ago
    I have the newsletter in email and there wasn't much more than what was posted above, other than quoting from this article: https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-of-insider-trading-that-helped-collapse-terraform-659e6993?mod=hp_lead_pos6 https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-o... That point was the crux of Matt Levine's argument: Terra and Luna were unregulated and easy-to-game securities. So you can't complain when the smartest people on Wall Street figured out how to pop the balloon in their favor -- (not ai emdash) particularly when it's their job. I will quote the first few paragraphs leading up to it though: >The basic story of Terra is: >Terra was a big crypto project, led by a company called Terraform Labs and a guy named Do Kwon, which at its peak had a market value of about $50 billion. >It had a token, the currency of its blockchain, called Luna, which at its peak traded at almost $120 per token. It also had an algorithmic stablecoin, TerraUSD, whose mechanism was that it could always be redeemed for $1 worth of Luna. >That’s a bad idea! The problem, which was extremely obvious and which everyone knew about, was that, if people lost confidence in Luna, there would be a death spiral: People would redeem TerraUSD for Luna and sell the Luna, which would drive down the price of Luna, which would lead to more redemptions, which would create even more Luna, until Luna was trading at a tiny fraction of a penny and every TerraUSD would be redeemed for millions of them. >In May 2022 that very much happened. Terra collapsed, people lost a lot of money and Do Kwon got 15 years in prison for fraud. >At its peak, though, Terra was a pretty big crypto project, and it had various dealings with some very smart and somewhat sharky trading firms like Jump Trading and Jane Street.
nubg 7mo ago
This this this so much. Thanks for pointing it out. > Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade.
- zahlman 7mo ago
  Wow, that's... considerably worse than typical output nowadays.
tzs 7mo ago
Where is "it's not X. It's Y"? I didn't notice it.
- duskwuff 7mo ago
  The negative parallelism pattern is broader than the literal phrasing "not X, but Y". Here are some examples from the article: - "A new lawsuit doesn’t just revisit the $40 billion Terra-Luna meltdown; it questions whether..." - "Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade." - "It reads less like a rescue offer and more like a firm positioning itself..." - "These are not isolated; they are part of Snyder’s broader efforts..." - "Not just as bystanders, but as alleged participants..."
  - tzs 7mo ago
    Thanks. I probably didn't notice them because they don't seem at all unnatural.
    - wzdd 7mo ago
      Not seeming unnatural is literally what the LLM is trained to be, but it's pretty interesting how little sense they make when you dig in. Goes to how little attention we pay normally, and/or how much weight we put on text seeming natural. "A new lawsuit doesn’t just revisit the $40 billion Terra-Luna meltdown; it questions whether..." -- the purpose of a lawsuit is to question something (by making an allegation), you don't sue someone to "revisit". "Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade." So is an hour, or thirty seconds, or...? "Not just as bystanders, but as alleged participants" -- the "just" doesn't make sense; participants aren't bystanders. Of the list, only "It reads less like a rescue offer" and "These are not isolated; they are part of Snyder’s broader efforts..." makes any sense in context.
      - duskwuff 7mo ago
        > Not seeming unnatural is literally what the LLM is trained to be, but it's pretty interesting how little sense they make when you dig in. It's as if they're optimizing for all the surface-level indicators of well-formed, meaningful thought, without the actual substance to back that up.
cynicalkane 7mo ago
The awful graphic at the top is certainly not made by a human.
godelski 7mo ago
For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. There's no hard evidence here, just hearsay. Nothing really to report until there's more information. I don't want drama in reporting, I want facts. But I guess I'm an outlier which is how we got both this AI style and the clickbait it was trained on... It also doesn't help that all the title graphics have the same dramatic feeling and are certainly AI generated.
- elcritch 7mo ago
  > For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. Yes! You put your finger on what bugs me about "no LLM" rules. It's not that LLMs writing isn't uniquely bad, but that it tends towards low quality clickbaity prone writing we already see everywhere. Banning LLM content is redundant. Side note, I'd guess LLMs don't tend towards vapid writing just because of clickbaity training material. Rather it's more fundamental. Writing well takes effort and energy. LLMs seem to avoid effort just like humans. Emotional based reasoning in humans is itself a heuristic system favored by evolution. Thinking is expensive. Emotional slop is cheap.
  - whatshisface 7mo ago
    Here's why no LLM rules make sense: Imagine you know a guy named Patel. He pirated every movie ever made and is a prolific writer. So prolific, in fact, that he has a blog, called "Patel's Log." On this blog is a review of every movie ever made. At first, you think that's neat. It's not exactly a book of all knowledge, but it's a significant human achievement, perhaps even historic. Things take a turn for the worse when you're reading a review in the Times. You recognize Patel's distinctive style, and call him up to ask if the Times stole his post. He says that a Times columnist asked for his opinion, and he sent them a link. It turns out the columnist copied his blog post verbatim: but he says he can't complain without being inconsistent, since he pirated every movie ever made. You find this humorous, until you recognize his style in the Atlantic - then the Post. Eventually you're disappointed when the Ebert staff publish an opinion piece in favor of Patel's Log matching (PatelLM), and you're forced to wonder if that' what Ebert would have thought. Your boss sends you copy-pasted PatelLM content in a morning Slack message about a movie she watched over the weekend. Your friends quote Patel's Log verbatim on Discord. Hollywood starts using PatelLM to indirectly plagiarize other movies. Soon, Patel's posts begin to echo each other as the supply of novel perspectives is overwhelmed by PatelLM. Film criticism become a dessicated corpse, filled with plastic and presented in a glass case with a pin through its heart. Thought is dead. There is only Patel.
manoDev 7mo ago
“It’s not about human writing. It’s about the message.” AI is turning the entire web into LinkedIn itisnotaboutism.

Waiting for the only human I trust in this space to report on this: https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/

ChrisMarshallNY 7mo ago
+1 on that. Thanks! I'm sure she'll be right on it...
- consumer451 7mo ago
  She's far braver than most of us. I self-censor all the time on this website. Havel's greengrocer, placing the sign. Carney at Davos, his eyes uncovered.
bdelmas 7mo ago
You could also check Matt Levine from Money Stuff - Bloomberg. He is quite known on HN. The way he writes plus his great knowledge with no BS makes him my favorite (and only) journalist I follow. Edit: actually someone already found his article and posted it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47160848
- consumer451 7mo ago
  Thanks, but the link to the journalist I shared has been threatened multiple times, and yet she kept trucking through. I rarely say "avoid MSM," but in this case, in 2026, I would personally recommend avoiding your MSM recommendation. No hard feelings.

jlund-molfese 7mo ago

https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-of-insider-trading-that-helped-collapse-terraform-659e6993 https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-o... is a pretty normal one

necubi 7mo ago

Matt Levine has a take: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-02-24/ai-can-manage-your-mutual-fund https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-02-24/ai-... > Look, I am sorry. But if you go to Jump Trading and Jane Street and say “hello, I have an unregulated poorly designed mechanism that could lead to $50 billion of market value collapsing overnight, would you like to trade with me,” they are going to say yes, but their eyes are going to light up, you know? If at Time 0 you give them an extremely gameable system that can produce billions of dollars of profit, at Time 10 your system is going to be a smoking wreckage and they are going to have billions of dollars of profit. That’s their whole job, you know? I couldn’t tell you in advance what all the intermediate steps will be, and in fact in hindsight I cannot tell you what the intermediate steps actually were, how Jump and Jane Street made money off the collapse of Terra. But as a heuristic, I mean, come on. Terra was like “hello we have a balloon full of money, here is a pin, dooooooon’t pop the balloon.” Guess what!

bsder 7mo ago
How about a non-paywalled link? archive.is seems to be having issues today.
- bb88 7mo ago
  I have the newsletter in email and there wasn't much more than what was posted above, other than quoting from this article: https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-of-insider-trading-that-helped-collapse-terraform-659e6993?mod=hp_lead_pos6 https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-o... That point was the crux of Matt Levine's argument: Terra and Luna were unregulated and easy-to-game securities. So you can't complain when the smartest people on Wall Street figured out how to pop the balloon in their favor -- (not ai emdash) particularly when it's their job. I will quote the first few paragraphs leading up to it though: >The basic story of Terra is: >Terra was a big crypto project, led by a company called Terraform Labs and a guy named Do Kwon, which at its peak had a market value of about $50 billion. >It had a token, the currency of its blockchain, called Luna, which at its peak traded at almost $120 per token. It also had an algorithmic stablecoin, TerraUSD, whose mechanism was that it could always be redeemed for $1 worth of Luna. >That’s a bad idea! The problem, which was extremely obvious and which everyone knew about, was that, if people lost confidence in Luna, there would be a death spiral: People would redeem TerraUSD for Luna and sell the Luna, which would drive down the price of Luna, which would lead to more redemptions, which would create even more Luna, until Luna was trading at a tiny fraction of a penny and every TerraUSD would be redeemed for millions of them. >In May 2022 that very much happened. Terra collapsed, people lost a lot of money and Do Kwon got 15 years in prison for fraud. >At its peak, though, Terra was a pretty big crypto project, and it had various dealings with some very smart and somewhat sharky trading firms like Jump Trading and Jane Street.

nubg 7mo ago

This this this so much. Thanks for pointing it out. > Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade.

zahlman 7mo ago
Wow, that's... considerably worse than typical output nowadays.

tzs 7mo ago

Where is "it's not X. It's Y"? I didn't notice it.

duskwuff 7mo ago
The negative parallelism pattern is broader than the literal phrasing "not X, but Y". Here are some examples from the article: - "A new lawsuit doesn’t just revisit the $40 billion Terra-Luna meltdown; it questions whether..." - "Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade." - "It reads less like a rescue offer and more like a firm positioning itself..." - "These are not isolated; they are part of Snyder’s broader efforts..." - "Not just as bystanders, but as alleged participants..."
- tzs 7mo ago
  Thanks. I probably didn't notice them because they don't seem at all unnatural.
  - wzdd 7mo ago
    Not seeming unnatural is literally what the LLM is trained to be, but it's pretty interesting how little sense they make when you dig in. Goes to how little attention we pay normally, and/or how much weight we put on text seeming natural. "A new lawsuit doesn’t just revisit the $40 billion Terra-Luna meltdown; it questions whether..." -- the purpose of a lawsuit is to question something (by making an allegation), you don't sue someone to "revisit". "Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade." So is an hour, or thirty seconds, or...? "Not just as bystanders, but as alleged participants" -- the "just" doesn't make sense; participants aren't bystanders. Of the list, only "It reads less like a rescue offer" and "These are not isolated; they are part of Snyder’s broader efforts..." makes any sense in context.
    - duskwuff 7mo ago
      > Not seeming unnatural is literally what the LLM is trained to be, but it's pretty interesting how little sense they make when you dig in. It's as if they're optimizing for all the surface-level indicators of well-formed, meaningful thought, without the actual substance to back that up.

cynicalkane 7mo ago

The awful graphic at the top is certainly not made by a human.

godelski 7mo ago

For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. There's no hard evidence here, just hearsay. Nothing really to report until there's more information. I don't want drama in reporting, I want facts. But I guess I'm an outlier which is how we got both this AI style and the clickbait it was trained on... It also doesn't help that all the title graphics have the same dramatic feeling and are certainly AI generated.

elcritch 7mo ago
> For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. Yes! You put your finger on what bugs me about "no LLM" rules. It's not that LLMs writing isn't uniquely bad, but that it tends towards low quality clickbaity prone writing we already see everywhere. Banning LLM content is redundant. Side note, I'd guess LLMs don't tend towards vapid writing just because of clickbaity training material. Rather it's more fundamental. Writing well takes effort and energy. LLMs seem to avoid effort just like humans. Emotional based reasoning in humans is itself a heuristic system favored by evolution. Thinking is expensive. Emotional slop is cheap.
- whatshisface 7mo ago
  Here's why no LLM rules make sense: Imagine you know a guy named Patel. He pirated every movie ever made and is a prolific writer. So prolific, in fact, that he has a blog, called "Patel's Log." On this blog is a review of every movie ever made. At first, you think that's neat. It's not exactly a book of all knowledge, but it's a significant human achievement, perhaps even historic. Things take a turn for the worse when you're reading a review in the Times. You recognize Patel's distinctive style, and call him up to ask if the Times stole his post. He says that a Times columnist asked for his opinion, and he sent them a link. It turns out the columnist copied his blog post verbatim: but he says he can't complain without being inconsistent, since he pirated every movie ever made. You find this humorous, until you recognize his style in the Atlantic - then the Post. Eventually you're disappointed when the Ebert staff publish an opinion piece in favor of Patel's Log matching (PatelLM), and you're forced to wonder if that' what Ebert would have thought. Your boss sends you copy-pasted PatelLM content in a morning Slack message about a movie she watched over the weekend. Your friends quote Patel's Log verbatim on Discord. Hollywood starts using PatelLM to indirectly plagiarize other movies. Soon, Patel's posts begin to echo each other as the supply of novel perspectives is overwhelmed by PatelLM. Film criticism become a dessicated corpse, filled with plastic and presented in a glass case with a pin through its heart. Thought is dead. There is only Patel.

manoDev 7mo ago

“It’s not about human writing. It’s about the message.” AI is turning the entire web into LinkedIn itisnotaboutism.