31–40 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's one tell-tale of many: "No alarm, no program light." Another one: "Two instructions are missing: [...] Four bytes." One more: "The defensive coding hid the problem, but it didn’t eliminate it."
This is my exact writing style - I'm screwed.
This is so insightfully and powerfully written I had literal chills running down my spine by the end. What a horrible world we live in where the author of great writing like this has to sit and be accused of "being AI slop" simply because they use grammar and rhetoric well.
If an LLM wrote that, then I no longer oppose LLM art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's one tell-tale of many: "No alarm, no program light." Another one: "Two instructions are missing: [...] Four bytes." One more: "The defensive coding hid the problem, but it didn’t eliminate it."
This is just writing; terse maybe and maybe not grammatically correct, but people write like that.
In fact, the latter is the opposite of terseness. LLMs love to tell you what things are not way more than people do.
See https://www.blakestockton.com/dont-write-like-ai-1-101-negat...
(The irony that I started with "it's not just" isn't lost on me)
Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.
The short sentence construction is the most suspicious, but I actually don't see anything glaring. It normally jumps out and hits me in the face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth, Pangram thinks this article is fully human-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/f5f68ce9-70ac-4c2b-b0c3-0ca8...
Then pangram isn't very good, because that article is full of Claude-isms.
Not sure how I feel about the whole "LLMs learned from human texts, so now the people who helped write human texts are suddenly accused of plagiarizing LLMs" thing yet, but seems backwards so far and like a low quality criticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's one tell-tale of many: "No alarm, no program light." Another one: "Two instructions are missing: [...] Four bytes." One more: "The defensive coding hid the problem, but it didn’t eliminate it."
That's just writing. I frequently write like that. This insistence that certain stylistics patterns are "tell-tale" signs that an article was written by AI makes no sense, particularly when you consider that whatever stylistic ticks an LLM may possess are a result of it being trained on human writing.
Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.
This is the top reply on a substantial percentage of HN posts now and we should discourage it. It is: - sneering - a shallow dismissal (please address the content) - curmudgeonly - a tangential annoyance All things explicitly discouraged in the site guidelines. [1] Downvoting is the tool for items that you think don't belong on the front page. We don't need the same comment on every single article. [1] - https://news…
You can’t downvote submissions. That’s literally not a feature of the site. You can only flag submissions, if you have more that 31 karma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See also: “I'm Kenyan. I Don't Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me” by Marcus Olang', https://marcusolang.substack.com/p/im-kenyan-i-dont-write-li... For what it’s worth, Pangram reports that Marcus’ article is 100% LLM-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/640288b9-e16b-4f76-a730-8000...
In theory, wouldn't be too hard be to settle the question if whether he used ChatGPT to write it: get Olang to write a few paragraphs by hand, then have people judge (blindly) if it's the same style as the article. Which one sounds more like ChatGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then pangram isn't very good, because that article is full of Claude-isms.
Is it possible for a tool to know if something is AI written with high confidence at all? LLMs can be tuned/instructed to write in an infinite number of styles. Don't understand how these tools exist.
They found that Pangram suffers from false positives in non-prose contexts like bibliographies, outlines, formatting, etc. The article does not touch on Pangram’s false negatives.
I personally think it’s an intractable problem, but I do feel pangram gives some useful signal, albeit not reliably.
Super interesting. I wish this article wasn’t written by an LLM though. It feels soulless and plastic.
It seems like almost every discussion has at least someone complaining about "AI slop" in either the original post or the comments.