I see it less as a Slashvertisment and more of a Slashwarning.

My own workplace actually requires AI use for some writing (got to get those numbers up for the investors). Because of this, I've noted that in its enthusiasm toward verboseness, AI has a strong tendency to alter the meaning of what was originally written. In fact, I've caught it changing it to the extent that it ended up the complete opposite of what was originally intended. I would therefore suggest that pointing out AI use by an article is a valid part of the criticism of that article, as it indicates that the article may be misleading not just the reader, but as a part of its creation also misled the author.

Obviously, this only applies if the work is still under copyright, but for older works, destroying the original binding has already removed any value it had, rebinding it is a fools errand.

After they remove the binding and cover and separate the pages to make it easier to scan, making your "let's resell the books" a bit dodgy to begin with, after scanning, they destroy the pages, as required by copyright law. Creating a digital copy of the book for use in training models and then reselling the book would be cut and dried copyright infringement.

"You can't prove it" is not a good look. As someone that frequently looks for obscure hardback titles, which are incredibly hard to locate at the best of times, this feels like the burning of the library of Alexandria: https://nltimes.nl/2026/06/25/... If we take AI firms at their own word, the original is not retained in the data, so it can only be seen as wanton destruction.

AI has pretended to be human since ELIZA. It very much isn't the problem most people have, as they would have been complaining about it for decades. The problem most people have seem to be based around:

• 1. How (generative) AI has been created - through unsolicited, destructively agressive aquisition of other peoples work.
• 2. The ecological cost (however slight) of running it at a time when we can ill afford that kind of extravagent outlay of power and clean water.
• 3. Who it benefits - the small cliche of untouchable, world striding fascist paedophiles.
• 4. The harms it promises (boasts!) to cause to the existing work force.

It could be seen as an attempt to attack disclosure laws by making them appear moot. "No need to disclose, AI output already has watermarks so you can see where it came from." It's about smoothing the ride for the users, who, by definition as they're replacing their own thinking and skills with AI, are exceptionally lazy. Disclosure requires responsibility and keeping track of where you're pulling your information from, watermarking requires... nothing.

The license you're quoting was updated literally hours after the auto opt-in to training was applied, which an "agree to this license" pop-up. While I'm quite willing to believe that part hadn't changed, does anyone know what changes they did make with such urgency?

Article might as well say this. The new model is that companies will tell you what to use, force you to use them, and you will eat your slop like a good little piggy.

Can someone explain to me the scope of work a carpenter is expected to carry out inside a data center? Are we just talking reception and the human areas for fit and finish, hanging doors and so on? Sounds pretty limited. Inside the data floor, I cannot recall ever seeing an ounce of wood, anywhere, except for the heads of many of the "intelligent hands".

Only at a very coarse level, to a simple mechanistic grade school understanding, and misses a plethora of the amazing, little understood things neurons, as animal cells, can do, which just goes to show computer scientists aren't neuroscientists.

You seem to getting on your high horse, so a warning: you probably shouldn't base any ideas of being the equivalent of a biological brain, or capable of thought on that alone, skippy. You're fetishising a computer program

LLM generated posts on Slashdot, who'd have thunk it?

Crushing peer pressure and stressing about social status has always been part of being a child. I think a lot of adults forget that, they'd rather listen to the sound of children playing from a distance, without listening too carefully to what they're actually saying. As a Gen X'er, I can say there was always peer pressure and stressing about social status. Sure, before the internet and smart devices took a hold, it was limited to other children in your local area, and you took your aspirational social cues from television and magazines, but it was very, very much there. I don't think older generations had it any different.

When Grok entered its MechaHitler and "white genocide" fixation period, it was an early very clumsy and extremely obvious attempt to shape its ideology to that of its benefactor. There is no surprise at all that models will be tweaked by those with power or influence to output whatever they demand and think is "correct". No doubt it's far more subtle now and you're hardly going to spot it from insane outbursts any more.

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

Amazing, to think that regurgitation isn't a known problem at all, and that there certaintly aren't several famous lawsuits based on several-paragraph near verbatim output.