Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Abundance Illusion

carlyle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: The Abundance Illusion

#41

Post by stereolambda »

Hansenq wrote: post #16
nkurz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to trust Pangram's tool over Carlyle's reputation? I don't know whether this was AI generated or not, but an online tool claiming it's AI generated doesn't sway my opinion much. Are there any studies showing that Pangram's tool is well calibrated for this type of article? If not, what makes you trust it? (I'm not sure why it was marked that way, but I vouched to bring your comment back from auto-d…

I only went to Pangram because I read through the essay and could not help but notice the Claude-like sentence structure and AI-isms in it, which distracted me and completely made me distrust the thesis of the piece. My understanding is that Pangram is the best out of all of the AI detectors and if there is a better one I'm happy to switch to it. And it's easier to point to them than to give explicit sentences and ex…

To me these look like professional writing, and I've seen worse LLM'isms. I am with some people in that I don't usually want to read pieces where GenAI was involved. But this is one of the cases where I wouldn't want the remedy to be a life of constant purity tests and suspicion. There has been enough of that in contemporary culture. I want to trust people and let them be by default. I mean, I don't want writers to specifically memorize current LLM'isms in order to avoid them: or worse, to prompt an LLM to strip them. I believe from experience than GenAI texts have secondary bad characteristics, mainly being bland in style and thought, and often going nowhere, like mandatory student papers. This should be enough to bury or criticize them on merits more often than not.

I do see myself treating slightly broken grammar, typos as a slightly positive signal in writing in the recent years. I also see that this is messed up - I'd like to respect someone in kind if they put care in writing - and easy to fake if anybody wants to, with an LLM. If you do strongly suspect GenAI writing, I mean it's fair if a sincere opinion, but I'm tired of having those as top comments with a whole response tree. Ironically contributing to that now.

Re: The Abundance Illusion

#42

Post by ASalazarMX »

massysett wrote: post #28
Hansenq wrote: post #8

61% AI generated, according to Pangram https://www.pangram.com/history/e5a00ace-94cc-436e-b87b-a094... c'mon, you're Carlyle, a trusted institution for financial advice! How can I trust what you're saying if the AI-generated text is so blatantly obvious?

I do not understand why this matters. Judge the content on its merit. It makes no difference if “AI wrote it”.

This has the same energy as people who don't care if controversial images in social media are AI generated, as long as they're engaging.

It makes a huge difference if the writing was manual or automated. LLMs generate verbose, generic writing, and ideas that could be concisely expressed in a sentence inflate to entire paragraphs. It's disrespectful to readers when the author saves a couple of hours by wasting thousands of their readers.

Re: The Abundance Illusion

#43

Post by avianlyric »

derektank wrote: post #38
beloch wrote: post #21

Some have touted the U.S. as having achieved "energy independence" because of its status as net exporter of oil. This is premature. The U.S. is marginally a net exporter. However, it still imports a lot of oil. It just exports slightly more than it imports. So, if the world markets gets too dicey, it'd be easy to just cut off the export taps and keep all that oil for Americans, right? Not so fast! First, it's the wro…

The US on net exports 2.5M barrels a day, or roughly 10% of its total consumption, and the majority of its imports are from countries like Canada that are themselves net exporters and would be unlikely to retaliate against a US export ban. There are definitely technical issues with refinery capacity, but I don’t think they’re insurmountable if the US seriously wanted to attempt an export ban, even in the short term.…

> There are definitely technical issues with refinery capacity, but I don’t think they’re insurmountable

If they were cheap or easy to solve, don’t you think US refineries would have already converted to support domestic crude? Domestic crude is cheaper than imported crude, the only reason to import is because it so expensive to convert a refinery. My, admittedly very limited, understanding is that you generally don’t convert refineries, it’s cheaper and easier to just build a new one that targets a new type of crude. Building refineries takes a few years, they’re not something you throw together in a few months when oil markets go crazy.

Re: The Abundance Illusion

#44

Post by skybrian »

beloch wrote: post #21

Some have touted the U.S. as having achieved "energy independence" because of its status as net exporter of oil. This is premature. The U.S. is marginally a net exporter. However, it still imports a lot of oil. It just exports slightly more than it imports. So, if the world markets gets too dicey, it'd be easy to just cut off the export taps and keep all that oil for Americans, right? Not so fast! First, it's the wro…

Looking at nationwide statistics is also a bit misleading because nobody is average. Under that scenario, oil consumers are exposed and oil producers will win big.

Re: The Abundance Illusion

#45

Post by K0balt »

Hansenq wrote: post #16
nkurz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to trust Pangram's tool over Carlyle's reputation? I don't know whether this was AI generated or not, but an online tool claiming it's AI generated doesn't sway my opinion much. Are there any studies showing that Pangram's tool is well calibrated for this type of article? If not, what makes you trust it? (I'm not sure why it was marked that way, but I vouched to bring your comment back from auto-d…

I only went to Pangram because I read through the essay and could not help but notice the Claude-like sentence structure and AI-isms in it, which distracted me and completely made me distrust the thesis of the piece. My understanding is that Pangram is the best out of all of the AI detectors and if there is a better one I'm happy to switch to it. And it's easier to point to them than to give explicit sentences and ex…

It’s either heavily AI written or the authors style has been heavily influenced by LLM writing. That said, using LLMs when writing does not mean the article is not informative, thought provoking, or relevant. An idea fleshed out in prose by an AI is not the same as AI generated content. But it is lazy writing.

How do we create an environment that incentivizes human writers to focus on their craft instead of “productivity”?

Thats maybe one of the more pressing issues of our time.

Re: The Abundance Illusion

#46

Post by BobaFloutist »

sdenton4 wrote: post #29
lacker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes there are studies, for example last year Pangram's false positives were measured to be under 0.5%. https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals Personally, at first I thought these sorts of tools were dumb and wouldn't really work, but I think it works because it just isn't designed to be "adversarial". If you want your AI to trick Pangram, you can make an AI to trick Pangram. It just catches people who…

Any binary classifier can have a FPR under 0.5% if you don't have any restriction on FNR...

If the FPR is very low, the FNR rate doesn't really matter if you get a positive result (unless the pre-test probability is very low, which is not the case here)
Post reply on HN