It's getting boring how every. single. article. has comments how the article is AI generated. The funny thing is the article writing styles are completely different, but every one has apparently "tell-tale" signs of "AI slop". It just gets tiring.

For what it's worth I pasted the first couple of paragraphs into several AI detectors and 4/5 said it's clean, while one said mixed (partly AI generated partly human). So either all these AI generation tools are crap, or the text is not so "obviously" AI generated. Not saying either way, but it seems to at least not be so obvious.

▲

Version467 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

All of those tools are garbage. There is no reliable automated way to detect ai generated text. In 2023 OpenAI had a tool for this as well and they eventually took it down because it wasn't accurate enough. The major AI labs are probably best positioned to make such a tool work. If even they can't, then some random company with access to a fraction of a data and a fraction of the compute almost certainly also cannot.

▲

mattvr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The detectors are wrong. Here’s the thing: AI slop has a distinctive structure that many of us spot from a mile away.

The kicker? This setup-punchline format sets off a red alert for astute readers’ AI detectors.

This isn’t just AI slop, it’s an industrial AI sludge factory.

(note: this was ironically written by a human)

	▲	cycomanic an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You realise the irony right? You say say AI "slop" has a distinctive structure, but at the same time you (and the other poster) say that AI tools can not detect it? For what it's worth I'm an AI sceptic, but one thing that AI tools are good at is pattern matching (that's really all they do). But somehow pattern matching AI writing is so obvious to human's but it completely fails all AI tools (just tried another tool which said 100% human). It doesn't match up. Moreover it's getting tiring, because every single article has these comments on them, and I've seen enough examples where authors showed up in discussions or texts were from before LLMs were widely available, but posters were still adamant that the text was AI generated. I highly doubt that people here would reliably pick out (success rate > 60%, i.e. you get 60% of guesses correctly if text was generated by a human or LLM) LLM generated text that completely fools 90% of AI detectors. Regarding the setup-punchline format, guess what, those were popular way before LLMs (not surprising LLMs must have learned them from somewhere).