Diamond market

[email protected]

Moissanite is a completely different substance than diamond, it's a silicon carbide crystal, and it's also made synthetically so no worries about exploitation mining, it's also cheaper

Flying Squid

Quartz can be synthesized

Flying Squid

Ok, but is any of it wrong? That's much more important to me, but I can't speak for anyone else.

[email protected]

Probably because it was boring and repetitive by the 3/50th paragraph.

Flying Squid

As a rule of thumb, man-made diamonds on average sell for about 10% the cost of natural diamonds. A year ago, they cost about 20%-30% of the price, according to Diamond Hedge.

A natural 2-carat, round-cut diamond with a high-quality color and clarity rating costs about $13,000-14,000, whereas the equivalent lab-grown diamond sells for about $1,000, according to Sompura.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-natural-lab-diamond/

[email protected]

Cool-ass economics fun fact, hell yeah

~or~ ~not~ ~so~ ~fun~

MentalEdge

I'm asking about the light. The lightshow produced by a crystal is down to both the optical properties of the material, but also the geometry of how it was cut.

The image is really cool, but it only demonstrates a difference if the Moissanite was cut into the exact same shape as the diamonds.

A prism doesn't split light becayse of the material its made of, but because of its shape.

[email protected]

It's not so much people being attracted to scarcity, but decades of diamond industry propaganda having an effect on our culture. Even now there's an active effort being put by the diamond industry into keeping natural diamonds the "forever gem" while artificial gems made in a lab are being portrayed as "everyday gems", as in less prestigious.

[email protected]

Why does it say "likeley generated by AI"? If it's 43%, that means it's more likely to be written by a Human.

Margot Robbie

At this point you're not paying money for a diamond, you're paying money for a certificate.

If you want to know how much a diamond is really worth, go to any jewelry store and ask them to appraise the resell value of your natural diamond ring with certificate and all, no matter how much you paid for it, they're probably going to tell you only the precious metal setting is worth any money, and the rock itself is utterly worthless the second you received it.

Which makes diamond a terrible symbol for love.

[email protected]

A lot of comments here are suspicious of you, so I'm going to try my hand at guessing whether this was AI.

Since GPTs are hilariously bad at detecting themselves, I'll venture on the human spirit!

First, we establish truth 1: this is copy-pasted.

Although Moissanite isn't mentioned twice, everything after "Synthetic Alexandrite" inclusively is mentioned twice. That means this was procedurally copy-pasted. Someone writing on their own would either CTRL+A then CTRL+C and make no mistakes, or not repeat themself at all.

Of course, we can also look at the half-formalized format that indicates something was copied from raw text and pasted into markdown, rather than formatted with markdown first.

Colon:
words words Colon:
words words Colon:

copy-paster spotted

Second, we cast doubt that a human wrote the source.

AI-isms vs. non AI-isms
- Non-reused acronym definitions.
  
  Garnets like... yttrium iron garnet (YIG)
  
  This is probably taken straight from the Wikipedia's site description for YIG. Usually humans don't define an acronym only to never use it, unless they're making a mistake, especially not for just making repeated structure. So either Wikipedia was in the training corpus or this was Googled.
- 5/23 sentences start with "While" (weak ai indicator)
- no three-em dashes or obvious tricolons are overused (non ai-indicator)
- no filler bullshit introduction or conclusion (non ai-indicator)
- obvious repeated structure that you can feel (strong ai indicator)
- Suspiciously uncreative descriptions (ai indicator)
  
  "These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out." (emphasis added)
- Repetition of "unusual" and "rare" rather than more flavorful or useful adjectives (AI indicator)
  - We're talking synthetic stuff. Would a human write about rarity?
- Superficial, neutral-positive voice despite length and possible source. If this was pasted from a technical blog, I'd expect it to have more "I" and personal experiences, or more deep anecdotal flavor (AI indicator)
  - e.g. use of "fascinating" but doesn't go deeper into any positivities

Third... let's take a guess

So it was copy-pasted from somewhere, but I can't imagine it being from a blog or website, and it isn't directly from Wikipedia. It has some nonhuman mistakes, but is otherwise grammatical, neutral-positive, and repetitively structured. And it lacks that deeper flavor. So.... it was an AI, but likely not openAI.

At least there aren't any very "committal" facts, so the length but lack of depth suggests that everything's maaaaaaybe true...

I wasted my time typing this

[email protected]

I'm not even sure where the need for an expensive gem stone came from, diamond or otherwise.

My wedding/engagement ring came from an artist and the bands are sculpted and fit together. It's beautiful and I never have to worry about the stone falling out of the setting, plus it was in our price range. Gem stones can be nice, not arguing against them, but rings without them can be just as pretty and more affordable.

[email protected]

no worries about exploitation

Until De Beers starts synthesizing it.

[email protected]

Isn't it both shape and material? The refractive index of the material is important in determining how much the light bends at the interface.

[email protected]

Moissanite has a marginally higher index of refraction than diamond so the "ideal" cutting geometry would be different. This looks like a misleading demonstration intended to market something. They appear nearly identical in normal conditions

[email protected]

It was a marketing campaign from De Beers. Where else would it have come from.

[email protected]

Says the guy who just had his feeling of superiority threatened.

[email protected]

I enjoyed your analysis, and appreciate the time you spent on it!

[email protected]

Imagine thinking normal people don't have hobbies and then acting superior about it on the Internet...

[email protected]

Yeah what conditions are these scientists working under?