81–90 of 155 posts
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.
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.
I've also never used an AI detector, and probably never will.
In my experience:
1. The people who rely the most on AI writing don't like to admit it. I catch obvious AI hallucinations in my boss's "documentation," and he always insists it was his own human oversight, despite it being very obviously a mistake I've caught Claude (and importantly, no human coworker) making repeatedly
2. I don't trust a machine more than myself to judge writing
3. Obvious AI "tells" just make it clear i don't need to keep reading, not that i need some kind of validation. In some sense, i guess that might save me time? But i still have to have read enough to know what it is...
In general, i think the author makes great points about how _LLM "thinking" is just the reproduction of the language of reasoning_, that is not necessarily a replacement for actual reasoning. It'll take a lot more than that for me to believe an AI is "thinking" and not just giving statistically reasonable answers (reasonable or actionable though they may be)
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 not X, it's Y, though? Couldn't be me.
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.
Nah pry my lists of 3 from my cold dead hands. And my emdashes sometime after that. It's not X, it's Y , though? Couldn't be me.
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…
The robot can be made to write any such thing In the interest of not occupying significant page/screen height with LLM output, example prompts+responses here: https://dpaste.com/H9DXKNYQH.txt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is my position with this stuff. It became part of the LLM loop because it’s used a lot- it’s used a lot because it’s effective. 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 asso…
—
You're not using that, neither in the past from what I can tell, nor in this comment.
You're just using a hyphen/minus instead of a colon, that's not an llm-ism
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.
Telling humans to change how they write just so they won’t be accused of using AI is the most anti-human pro-AI idea imaginable.