71–80 of 155 posts
In one of the essays posted here, which was, ironically, about AI in education, a sentence, that an AI could not possibly write, that I could possibly write, because of its length and unusual structure, before finally reaching the verb, went on for 25 words. I don't know if it was written that way to show trust in the reader's intelligence, show disregard for reaching a wide audience, show a demonstration of skill, o…
In one of the essays posted here, which was, ironically, about AI in education, a sentence, that an AI could not possibly write, that I could possibly write, because of its length and unusual structure, before finally reaching the verb, went on for 25 words. I don't know if it was written that way to show trust in the reader's intelligence, show disregard for reaching a wide audience, show a demonstration of skill, o…
In the interest of not occupying significant page/screen height with LLM output, example prompts+responses here: https://dpaste.com/H9DXKNYQH.txt
I like that these AI idioms exist. They're like watermarks for text. It's worth the cost of humans avoiding them. Companies will eventually train their models to be undetectable, but society would be better if they didn't.
It's like knowing to stay away from a Github repo because it has a readme that's full of emoji bullet points.
I like that these AI idioms exist. They're like watermarks for text. It's worth the cost of humans avoiding them. Companies will eventually train their models to be undetectable, but society would be better if they didn't.
I like that these AI idioms exist. They're like watermarks for text. It's worth the cost of humans avoiding them. Companies will eventually train their models to be undetectable, but society would be better if they didn't.
Humans are just trying to do what Pangram is trying to do: guess what is AI, badly. The post argues against this: > In the end, shaming people for writing that gets flagged as AI can lead people to sidestep structures the model has learned from us: structures that are effective tools for argumentation. We take the tools of critical thinking out of the kit at the time we most need them.
Now we’re going to stop using effective rhetorical methods because they imply AI, even if we know we’re not using AI?
It reminds me of, as a teenager, asking my dad if he ever saw Led Zeppelin live. He hadn’t, because he didn’t really like fans of Led Zeppelin and didn’t want to be associated with them.
As an ashamed fan of certain bands I get this instinct but I also promised to myself when I heard this that I would do my best to not allow other people to influence how I thought about things I enjoyed.
On the same note I’m trying to be “braver” about things like em-dashes, though my personally style has always been to use them as I did in this comment- like this, which I guess distinguishes me, until an LLM picks that up too…
Clearly humans always type "it's not merely X, but also Y"
It's bigger than that, it's large https://youtu.be/1Pr8xnNi7OM
> Recent overuse by language models has led many to declare it bad writing. I'm not so sure. It is bad writing.
Always? There's never a place for it?
Another bunch of dead give aways in code bases with READMEs is the repetitive: - "No X, No Y, No Z." pattern - "Here is X - it makes Y" The worst and most obvious one is the constant over use of emoji ticks and crosses.
Alternatively, no one sounds like an llm, an llm sounds like someone, typically those close to the median of the training corpus. If AI were genuinly capable of novelty, it would be a big deal, tech bros having enough work ethic to design new detectable prose for an llm is a mssive reach and has no real evidence supporting it, else why do tech bros only tackle the easier issues? Things we have massive well labelled c…