Surveillance is worse than slop. Also seems like an disproportional use of resources compared to free formats and editors we already have today.
This product is in bad taste, and I hope it doesn't succeed.
"No, I swear I wrote this."
31–40 of 50 posts
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#32AI writing is not writing and AI writers are also not writers.
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose" You have no idea how many false positives and how many false negatives you have in your judgement. It is indeed impossible to differentiate between badly written human text and somewhat good written llm text.
> You have no idea how many false positives and how many false negatives you have in your judgement. The default LLM style is pretty deterministic. "Not X, Not Y. Just Z", etc. There are phrases and cadences which are very rare in human prose ( I have noted, IRL, that those people who read very little, and only read when they have to (work docs, etc) are literally unable to tell that a piece of prose sounds like an L…
It's really similar to special effects in tv/movies: Whenever there's something new it's hard to tell, but as we get used to it and start seeing the patterns it becomes easier to tell. The older the special effects are the more obvious it is. Quite often you can just kind of tell if something was special effects or practical effects without being sure why. And there are always some really well done ones that slip past everyone, or odd lighting that makes it look fake (a thread a day or two ago on here about a legal case involving a photograph, some people in the comments thought it was a painting).
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#34Trivial to simulate. Though I disagree that AI writing is impossible to differentiate from human prose, at least for now. It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose (or, at least, much less interesting to read), though some are better than others, and I'm better able to spot writing from models I use regularly (Claude has a very distinctive style I can spot from a mile away, but that's true partl…
Or maybe 2 out of 3 guys you call "AI" actually wrote it themselves and you were too prejudiced to believe them.
Doubtful. I read a lot of forum posts, as I maintain a popular OSS project. And, I read a lot of books from the before times. And, I read a lot of LLM prose, because I use them every day for coding and various assistant type tasks. It's still pretty obvious when an LLM writes something.
I even did post-training on Gemma 4 (a small model which has very good prose for a model, especially a small model) to try to make it able to write more like me, purely as an experiment to learn how training LoRAs works, and using data that I know is ethically sourced. It still distinctly writes like an LLM, with a few of my annoying quirks baked in: Inappropriate use of ellipses, too many parentheticals, occasionally dismissive tone. But, it can't stop doing the LLM things, either, without becoming incoherent.
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#35Trivial to simulate. Though I disagree that AI writing is impossible to differentiate from human prose, at least for now. It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose (or, at least, much less interesting to read), though some are better than others, and I'm better able to spot writing from models I use regularly (Claude has a very distinctive style I can spot from a mile away, but that's true partl…
Do you know how many things throughout history people claimed confidently they could definitely tell the difference when it was later scientifically proven that they could not? And in all cases they believed that they were actually special and they were in fact correct despite the fact that this keeps happening.
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose" You have no idea how many false positives and how many false negatives you have in your judgement. It is indeed impossible to differentiate between badly written human text and somewhat good written llm text.
> You have no idea how many false positives and how many false negatives you have in your judgement. The default LLM style is pretty deterministic. "Not X, Not Y. Just Z", etc. There are phrases and cadences which are very rare in human prose ( I have noted, IRL, that those people who read very little, and only read when they have to (work docs, etc) are literally unable to tell that a piece of prose sounds like an L…
You've found the "holy grail" of LLM writing differentiation! Your opinion is in the "Goldilocks zone" between vacuous and paternalistic!
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#37Trivial to simulate. Though I disagree that AI writing is impossible to differentiate from human prose, at least for now. It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose (or, at least, much less interesting to read), though some are better than others, and I'm better able to spot writing from models I use regularly (Claude has a very distinctive style I can spot from a mile away, but that's true partl…
Trivial to simulate basic keystrokes. But I don't think it's trivial to simulate the natural process of drafting something. There's no concrete heuristic or algorithm (yet) for judging these types of replays, but I'd be impressed if someone can actually make a program that reliably simulates a natural keystroke-by-keystroke thought process which appears human when replayed in this way.
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#38Trivial to simulate. Though I disagree that AI writing is impossible to differentiate from human prose, at least for now. It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose (or, at least, much less interesting to read), though some are better than others, and I'm better able to spot writing from models I use regularly (Claude has a very distinctive style I can spot from a mile away, but that's true partl…
Do you know how many things throughout history people claimed confidently they could definitely tell the difference when it was later scientifically proven that they could not? And in all cases they believed that they were actually special and they were in fact correct despite the fact that this keeps happening.
I don't think I'm special. I think many people can tell the difference.
Edit: Also, I'm surprised images have gotten to the point where I have a hard time detecting AI in some cases, and they got there more quickly than prose. I really thought prose would be the first to fall. Video is still detectable. Music still detectable (by someone that enjoys music and pays attention to it). But, AI prose still outs itself pretty quickly.
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#39people aren't going to read the trace, they're just going to rely on an AI grade to see if this was plausibly human written
Re: "No, I swear I wrote this."
#40I have been making recordings for some of the code I wrote since 2011, mostly because I like the visual effect of how the code came together, but I guess it also proved that I wrote those code manually. A recent example can be found here: