111–120 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's more of a feature than it is a problem.
Agree to disagree. It allows badly written stuff to be defended, I would argue more often than alternative more acceptable case scenarios.
Others are free to dislike this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree to disagree. It allows badly written stuff to be defended, I would argue more often than alternative more acceptable case scenarios.
Outside of settings requiring formalized style, people are free to write and to speak however they wish. Others are free to dislike this.
Yes, that doesn't mean standards don't exist, nor that good and bad writing styles don't exist.
Don't be one of those 'everything is subjective' doofuses, please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outside of settings requiring formalized style, people are free to write and to speak however they wish. Others are free to dislike this.
> people are free to write and to speak however they wish. Yes, that doesn't mean standards don't exist, nor that good and bad writing styles don't exist. Don't be one of those 'everything is subjective' doofuses, please.
At the end of the day, it really is subjective: A reader either likes a style and/or finds that it is conducent to conveying meaning, or they do not.
(Speaking of unlikable styles, I'm just going to take the liberty to interpret the name-calling as your resignation on this matter. Have a nice day, comrade.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people are free to write and to speak however they wish. Yes, that doesn't mean standards don't exist, nor that good and bad writing styles don't exist. Don't be one of those 'everything is subjective' doofuses, please.
The very best part about English writing standards is that there are so many to pick from! At the end of the day, it really is subjective: A reader either likes a style and/or finds that it is conducent to conveying meaning, or they do not. (Speaking of unlikable styles, I'm just going to take the liberty to interpret the name-calling as your resignation on this matter. Have a nice day, comrade.)
This monumentally misses the point.
> it really is subjective
And this is just the disappointing and flatly incorrect view I hoped not to see. Sigh. Have a great day/night buddy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially when it was once suggested that frequent use could imply neurodivergence Well that explains a lot. Interestingly enough, I've found that I naturally write like an LLM, or rather the LLMs write like I did. I wonder how many other patterns we attribute to LLMs are common in neurodivergent writing just as a result of so much of the training data being areas of the internet where I'd imagine neurodivergence…
Related, I've seen a lot of misidentification of Aspie writing as being LLM-generated lately. You seem Aspie to me (and parent does as well) so it makes sense that you'd also see the similarity.
This reads like a troll post, but it does pose a good question. Is there realistically any way to CAPTCHA anymore? I'm thinking that we can't reliably sus out what's human and what's AI from here on out, and I don't think there's any good way to enforce something like a human emdash. The way we're going you won't be able to verify unless users scan their iris or a 3 letter agency vouches for them first.
Talking to someone in real life.
Of course that's taking the piss, but realistically that is sort of the answer: Having access to a side-channel through which you can identify that a person is in fact a person, coupled with the trust that they won't try to sleight you by making you waste your attention. Honestly with how much LLM drivel is being generated and the sort-of renaissance of the personal website, blog, and RSS, I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of consensus-trust-based network for human authors were established.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Related, I've seen a lot of misidentification of Aspie writing as being LLM-generated lately. You seem Aspie to me (and parent does as well) so it makes sense that you'd also see the similarity.
Ha, well I’m not on the spectrum but ADHD does have some overlap here and there.
I have a few friends who are definitely at other places on the spectrum and yet not diagnosed. The funny thing is Aspies are the most likely to be diagnosed because their early development can be most obvious, but it's still not always caught. (This is supported by recent research identifying the presence of a finite number of distinct genetic phenotypes in the autistic spectrum.)
This feels about as useful as the evil bit: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3514
If it's serious, I don't know why humans have to change to add hidden bytes, and we assume AI won't naturally learn them, or if it does the AI companies will be expected to filter them out. Why only on dashes? If the plan requires AI companies to make changes to their output, why not just say only AI should add extra invisible characters, and why not before or after any punctuation?