I'm so sick of people claiming things sound like AI, when it's so easily not true.

Between this and the flip side of AI-slop it's getting really frustrating out here online.

▲ progbits 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

From the article itself (presumably added later):

  Disclosure: Certain sections of this content were grammatically refined/updated using AI assistance

▲ chemotaxis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think people sometimes jump the gun over small things (emdashes, etc). That said, in this instance, your anger is very likely misdirected. The article is almost certainly substantially AI-generated.

	▲	nixpulvis 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, I guess I just don't care as much, as long as the author proof read it and it says what they want it to say. Just like I don't care if an AI submits a vulnerability report that is actually real.

▲ bluGill 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Problem is AI sounds like normal people. There are a few clues, but good writers have always sounded like AI - except good writers are not making things up.

▲

dec0dedab0de 3 days ago | parent [-]

AI text often sounds like Corporate/PR nonsense to me. I was already convinced that people speaking like that were robots 30 years ago.

	▲	bluGill 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		True, but at least 30 years ago once you filtered through you could get what you needed. Today there are scams that look just like real companies trying to get you to buy from them instead. Who knows what happens if you put your money down. (Scams were of course always a problem, but there is much less cost to create a scam)