Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | chrisjj's commentslogin

Can Claude Code even do that? Rather than provide code to do that.

Now says "All systems operational".


> that's AI.

Not if you agree with dictionaries and Wikipedia:

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making.


So which is it? DDOS attack or "AI" scrapers?

Sufficiently aggressive and inconsiderate scraping is indistinguishable from a DDOS attack.

No scraper seeks to deny the service it needs.

And no responsible site operator unable to distinguish should claim DDOS.


No well behaved scraper at least.

Scrapers because DDOS implies that it's malicious rather than accidental and there's no reason to think that.

Right, so probably the site should not be claiming "It is a DDOS attack".

A sufficiently stupid and egregious AI scraper is indistinguishable from a DDOS attack.

Edit: Fabian2k was ten seconds ahead. Damn!


So shouldn't that be: isn't what it says, but how much it says.

I'd be interested to hear the source of that info.

That's just standard sampling bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias

It's why public internet polls are more for fun/validating confirmation bias than actually gleaning actionable statistical insight, and why no one does them anymore. In this particular instance, the presentation and call-to-action rules out the "fun" angle of the poll.


So... who is it confusing, exactly?

Confusing is my personal perspective, interpreting the campaign in good faith.

Currently 4% v 96%.

The legal profession in England and Wales has entered uncharted territory. In a stark warning delivered by the High Court in June 2025, senior judges condemned the misuse of artificial intelligence tools by solicitors and barristers who submitted fake legal authorities in court.

The root cause has been the explosion of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, being used without proper validation. Unlike legal databases, these models do not retrieve verifiable case law. They generate plausible-sounding text based on probability. As the court warned, they “may cite sources that do not exist… [and] purport to quote passages from a genuine source that do not appear in that source.”


...


Does the quality of the work matter at all to you?

It certainly does, but that's not guaranteed with humans either. Nor is it the only factor that matters. It's a cost benefit tradeoff. If I am on trial for a crime, obviously I will pay for the quality. If I want to know what some language in a simple contract means, I will ask a LLM.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: