----
Note - this comment is 100% written by a human. AI checkers or moderators, please do not remove.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Revolutions_and_...
This is a net gain all around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_discoid_lupus_erythemat...
Better to have some part hook at the back of the head or any bony protrusions on the sides or back of the head, perhaps in the vicinity of the ears.
For one, we don’t really know how/why microplastics are bad, or how bad. If they have significant bad effects, the mechanism is slow and subtle, so unlikely to affect dogs (who, very sadly, just don’t live that long).
Second, the incremental increase in microplastics from this device would be very tiny compared to typical exposure estimates.
When you balance the very small risk against a tangible benefit, they answer is clear.
They're main exposure to microplastics would be from toys, water, dishes, and low-quality food, anyway. This nose guard would be a small drop in the bucket.
Some folks say we have, that it's still similar to the cancer rate in humans and higher than the cancer rate seen in animals that aren't pets. https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/health/dogs-cancer-partner
although it also seems like it's not something that's been being tracked very well https://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/evidence-based-medici...
We're talking micrograms per kg with a brass nozzle, unless you're printing in an abrasive filament. Possibly less - nozzle wear with non-abrasive filaments is very minor. If you're using a steel nozzle... Well, besides the fact that your steel nozzle probably doesn't contain lead, you're looking at an order of magnitude less wear or better.
Or, look at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6530847/ for a worst case scenario.
Lead in 3d prints is not just overblown, but a total non-issue outside of a laboratory context.
Why are you concerned about the food safety of this though?
But wrt to lead, it would mostly be in brass components
The CDC has some good info on 3D printers, but they don't mention food safety: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/publications/numbered/2024-103.htm...
Here is an article on the food side of things: https://spoolhound.com/food-safety-guide
Like, why ?
If you click the image it goes away.
Fair points. I’m a designer, not a writer, so I used an LLM to help write it. The story and the dogs are real. After reading the comments I removed the parts that felt off and defined DLE (discoid lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune skin condition made worse by sun).
My dog Billie has it, and that’s what started all this. I made the cover for her, shared it free, and it grew from there.
> I’m a designer, not a writer
Most people are not "writers" but anyone can write their own story in their own words, and it's always much more charming than the output of a text-generation tool, especially when the topic is something you did for your pet :)
I like the project but using Claude sure didn't improve this article.
Maybe instead of expecting everyone to be good at everything, we cut this guy a little slack and let him use AI to help write?
It's also worth noting that the article has been edited in the last hour. Some section headers read a lot more clearly and naturally now (which is awesome!).
Like if we have a problem with this being vibe coded, we’ve got a problem guys
But, did AI actually _help_ in this specific phrase? I think it's OK to point out the quirks (and even drawbacks) of AI, even if we generally support the underlying motions of the person using it.
Am I utterly mistaken or was LLM-written prose more tolerable when it was GPT-4o and Opus 3.x writing it?
But that doesn't change that slop sucks to read.
It's mainstreamed. Spare the rest of us.
It gets a lot less difficult when you don't outsource it to a chat bot at every opportunity. Communication matters. If you do it badly because you let a bot that can't write do it all for you people should complain. The fact that lots of people will do it doesn't mean that readers should lower their standards.
I'm never going to complain about people using AI to write their private documents, but if someone publishes something, explicitly for others to read, and what they published is annoying to read and that wasn't the goal of the "writer" they should probably know about it. Even if they never check the comments, those of us who were made to read that slop can commiserate with each other.
I do generally agree though that the author should edit or rewrite completely the AI output since he clearly put a lot of effort into the thing he made itself.
We're not professional editors, and this isn't a forum for aspiring writers looking to improve, we're just insulted that someone published thousands of words they didn't put any effort into while expecting others to slog through their slop.
I mean, I'm the "critic" that started this thread and my comment doesn't say that, so what exactly is your problem? If it were poor writing for any other reason would you have the same kneejerk defensive reaction that you have about poor AI writing?
What do I think you should do? Just ignore it and let people who are interested in what the guy made have a discussion. If you are so keen to discuss AI use in blog posts, make a separate post about it and have an on-topic discussion rather than starting a circle jerk in every other post.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Find something interesting to respond to instead.
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
> Omit internet tropes.
It's likely that but for LLMs, the article would not have been written. I'm glad it was written. It's also true that it's unpleasant to read LLM-written prose for those of us who have to read it all day for work.
I don't think it's shallow because writing quality isn't important, I think it's a shallow dismissal of the writing quality because it doesn't discuss anything interesting or substantive about the writing quality.
Also, what about the other guidelines? Comments should meet all of the guidelines, not just some of them. (I do get that some of these are borderline.)
If you feel a given comment is not within community guidelines you are free to flag it. I do not believe that we agree about the substantive value of noting an article was written with the heavy assistance of an LLM. I usually look at comments prior to reading an article; it's an effective time-saving measure.
I do not accept your attempt to make a blanket ban on noting an article was LLM-written.
> When she was diagnosed with DLE, discoid lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune condition where the immune system attacks the skin on the nose and sunlight makes it worse
edit: ah, just saw a comment from the author indicating they added that post-hoc
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ASCII-Table-wide.svg
Can you build a viable business against such low sales?
