CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@briankrebs Mine

@PallasRiot @jaredwhite Magyar's strategy sure sounds a lot like the mayor of NYC. Perhaps the next challenge is how do you "press the flesh" in a country with 35x the population (US/Hungary)?

@lcamtuf Only half? Seriously, I'd tweak your #1 to make it less dependent on detecting LLM writing [1] and alter the condition to include quality [2]. If the writing is well written AND makes a good point I'd say it's worthwhile.
I doubt there's much of this at all today, but why would it be so bad if it became a thing?
NOTES: [1] this isn't easy to detect accurate by software (and will get harder) and manually time consuming, plus false positives would be a loss.
[2] Low quality writing (LLM of human) is best avoided and can be detected quickly and accurately.

@annaecook Sounds like they 100% approve of all you wrote to me. Those people always find something to gripe about - and very few of them put significant work into the world (or they'd understand writing trade offs and how you cannot make everyone happy).

Agree with the main point: I think of AI delivering the "average of the corpus" which, considering how much sub-par stuff outnumbers quality work, must be mediocre at best.
https://annaecook.com/writing/2026/ai-prototyping-harder-worser-faster-wronger

@rogeragrimes Are you a real scientific publisher if you don't carefully review what you publish including verifying citations?

@evacide Beyond why, I'm working on how to make inroads to turn it around even a little. I'm always interested in ideas along that line if anyone cares to share.