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

Someone used my open source project to phish people

andrej.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–64 of 64 posts

Re: Someone used my open source project to phish people

#61

Post by nottorp »

Sophira wrote: post #54
no_multitudes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if you are serious? It really has nothing to do with being grammatically correct. The article is chock-full of all of the most common LLM tells. The aggressive use of negative parallelism, filler adjectives like "deeply", and unvaryingly breathless tone all feel like decisions an actual thinking person would not make.

On the one hand, people say that AI models (LLMs, image generators, etc) are just stealing from people and that they cannot be original. On the other hand, people say that AI models have tells that no actual person would do. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

No actual person would do when writing.

It looks like it was the prevailing accepted style by the human team who was initially training the "AI"s. Who were not writing.

Re: Someone used my open source project to phish people

#62

Post by tpoacher »

fg137 wrote: post #37
tpoacher wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, on what grounds do you call this slop? I thought it was a perfectly cromulent article making a perfectly reasonable point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326376

This isn't an explanation, it's just a quote from the article.

Let alone an explanation on why it's "slop" rather than just AI (re-)phrasing etc.

Re: Someone used my open source project to phish people

#63

Post by tpoacher »

trevithick wrote: post #32
tpoacher wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, instead he should have written: "The attacka didn broke into nuffin bruv. They jus noticing sometin I aint, yeh?" Instant betterness.

I would rather read an email the sender actually wrote even if it looked like your example, as opposed to AI-written. In that sense it is "better" to me.

Well I wouldn't. The whole point of communication is that something is adequately communicated, otherwise it makes for an extremely frustrating experience.

And the whole point about "slop" is exactly that the communication is not adequate (despite superficial eloquence), because it's "sloppy" thinking full of unnecessary verbiage that goes nowhere and disrespects the reader, making for an extremely frustrating communication experience.

But if AI (re-)phrasing helps communicate a message clearly then it's not slop. It's just AI assisted. Being able to spot common AI patterns isn't proof of slop, no-matter how sensitive to slop one might be.

And I'm saying this as a person who's VERY much against slop.

Re: Someone used my open source project to phish people

#64

Post by reconnecting »

eggbrain wrote: post #51
reconnecting wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the platform, the difference shows up exactly in the mitigation math. The 'make it cost more than it's worth' model only works when both sides of that ratio are knowable and bounded. With bonus abuse, the reward is fixed and the math is clear, so you can reliably price the abuser out. With organized criminals, you can't actually see what the abuse is 'worth' to them. And they can escalate almost infinitely: mimick…

> [...] With organized criminals, you can't actually see what the abuse is 'worth' to them. Even without collecting events, you can calculate what the abuse is worth to you , even if the math ends up being fuzzier. At the small platform operator level (one guy running a platform, as this article), the cost can be as simple as "this pisses me off and I have weekends." They can burn forty hours bolting on JA4 fingerpri…

[dead]
Post reply on HN