Live data from Hacker News

AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

gizmodo.com

101–110 of 189 posts

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#101
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, eventually AI will write like humans but currently most of the time it's very much apparent what was written by AI. English is my second language so it's hard for me to pinpoint the exact reason why but I guess it's more about the tone and the actual content (a.k.a bullshit) rather than grammar / choice of words. Most of the time AI slop reads like a soulless corporate ad. Probably because most of the content the…

If the AI writing is good, you’re not going to know it’s written by AI and you’ll continue to think you "can always tell" while more and more of what you read isn’t written by humans.

the only way to know if it's original or AI-written is to know the author writing skills beforehand.

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#102
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the AI writing is good, you’re not going to know it’s written by AI and you’ll continue to think you "can always tell" while more and more of what you read isn’t written by humans.

Yeah but to obtain good, you have to give such a specific and detailed prompt that you might just do it yourself.

[deleted]

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#103
post #54

I don't get this, my writing is a lot better +AI than it ever was without it (not a native speaker). So, what's the problem? As long as there are no lies right? And the writers do take responsibility... So fire them for presenting lies, for mindlessly shipping hallucinations... But why fire people that deliver on an assignment? Why care about how they do that?

Why pay someone to write if they can go to an AI service and get it for much less? That is why they care.

We'll have to wait and see if AI is like prior technological breakthroughs, i.e. does it eliminate drudgery and enable a higher level of creativity, at the short-term cost of some drudgerous jobs? This has been the case in the past.

I'm not hopeful. In the past, technology has performed work we didn't want to do in order to enable us to do work we did want to do. We want work that is expressive and creative and satisfying, but that is exactly the work that AI is increasingly replacing. AI can generate a pretty decent pop song today, and is still improving. Why will any media company want to pay human songwriters, musicians, producers, and publicists when AI can do all of that for near-zero cost and satisfy the vast majority of pop music consumers? AI can generate a decent story for a sports report from a box score and play summary of a game. The same with most other news and copywriting, the same with programming, the same with making movies, the same with art and design. If not today, then soon.

What can't it do? It can't do the laundry. It can't do the dishes. It can't cook dinner. It can't drive the car. It can't build a house. It can't paint a wall or fix a leaky pipe. And to the extent that technology can or will be able to do those things, it will involve expensive physical devices, because those tasks exist in the real physical world, not the digital world. Who will buy them when nobody can get paid for more creative work?

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#104
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I could care less if an author uses AI as long as I can understand what I'm reading and it's interesting. They still have to instruct the AI.

If you're reading nonfiction, it means you're wasting time reading a lot more words when you could have just read the prompt.

Not true if the author of the prompt used an iterative approach. Write the initial prompt, get the result, "simplify this, put more accent on that, make it less formal", get the result, and so on, and edit the final output manually anyway.

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#105

Prompt: I want to fire a particular writer. I need this to look like I have no bias. I will feed you the writers work, then I will ask you whether it was written by AI. You will confirm that it was written by AI and you will write a full report on it. Bye bye writer.

Based on the article provided, several elements suggest that the narrative could have been written or heavily influenced by an AI. Below are key points from the article that support this suspicion, each backed by direct citations: 1. *Generic Language and Lack of Specific Detail*: The article describes Kimberly Gasuras’s experience with broad, generalized statements that lack specific, nuanced detail that a human wri…

Did you use the prompt I gave exactly?

Edit: Well, I tried my prompt with Gemini and now I have a report about a Guardian journalist who is more than likely using AI to write their articles!

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#107
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs don't average , they learn the distribution , from which you then sample (or the UI does it for you). Because of that, they don't write in a single style that's a blend of many human styles - they can write in any and all of the human styles they saw in training , as well as blend them to create styles entirely "out of distribution". And it's up to your prompt (and sampling parameters) which style will be used.

Yeah, I am shocked people keep repeating this. We've seen LLMs easily writing mathematical proofs in the style of Shakespeare, come on.

Saying they find some “average” is an easy way to explain to a layman that LLMs are statistically based and are guessing and not actually spitting out correct text as you would expect from most other computer programs.

That’s why it’s repeated. It’s kind of correct if you squint and it’s easy to understand

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#108

Reminds this current slightly comedic (IMO) situation in my office: a few months ago developers were given access to GitHub's "Copilot Enterprise". Then, a month or so later, organisation also adopted another "AI" product checking pull requests for risks associated with "use of generative AI". And needless to say it does occasionally fail code written without any "generative AI"..

The flipside is that the AI-written code I've seen at work is usually painfully obvious upon human code review. If you need a tool to detect it, either it's good AI-written code, or you have particularly inept code reviewers.

Re: AI Detectors Get It Wrong. Writers Are Being Fired Anyway

#110
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs don't average , they learn the distribution , from which you then sample (or the UI does it for you). Because of that, they don't write in a single style that's a blend of many human styles - they can write in any and all of the human styles they saw in training , as well as blend them to create styles entirely "out of distribution". And it's up to your prompt (and sampling parameters) which style will be used.

Yeah, I am shocked people keep repeating this. We've seen LLMs easily writing mathematical proofs in the style of Shakespeare, come on.

There's still some typicality defined by the prompt though. If you ask for a proof in the style of Shakespeare, you're going to get some "average" Shakespeare. It's kind of embedded in the task definition; you're shifting the reference distribution.

If a LLM returned something really unusual for Shakespeare when you didn't ask for it, you'd say it's not performing well.

Maybe that's tautological but I think it's what's usually meant by "average".

I'm sure LLMs with something different is on the near horizon but I don't think we're there quite yet.

Post reply on HN