| The benchmark point is interesting but I think it undersells what the complexity buys you in practice. Yes, a minimal loop can score similarly on standardised tasks - but real development work has this annoying property of requiring you to hold context across many files, remember what you already tried, and recover gracefully when a path doesn't work out. The TODO injection nyellin mentions is a good example. It's not sophisticated ML - it's bookkeeping. But without it, the agent will confidently declare victory three steps into a ten-step task. Same with subagents - they're not magic, they're just a way to keep working memory from getting polluted when you need to go investigate something. The 200-line version captures the loop. The production version captures the paperwork around the loop. That paperwork is boring but turns out to be load-bearing. |
| |
| ▲ | rd a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Anyone who disagrees with this, please check the OP's previous comments. That's all the proof you need. And then, as an exercise, ask yourself why you were willing to give this comment leniency? | |
| ▲ | FrontierProject a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This site has gone full Tower of Babel. I've seen at least a thousand "AI comment" callouts on this site in the last month and at this point I'm pretty sure 99% of them are wrong. In fact, can someone link me to a disputed comment that the consensus ends up being it's actually AI? I don't think I've seen one. | | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You know how the chicken sexers do their thing, but can't explain it? Like they can't write a list of things they check for. And when they want to train new people they have them watch (apprentice style) the current ones, and eventually they also become good at doing it themselves? It's basically that. I can't explain it (I tried listing the tells in a comment below), but it's not just a list of things you notice. You notice the whole message, the cadence, the phrases that "add nothing". You play with enough models, you see enough generations and you start to "see it". If you'd like to check for yourself, check that user's comment history. It will become apparent after a few messages. They all have these tells. I don't know how else to explain it, but it's there. | | |
| ▲ | matsemann a day ago | parent [-] | | > You know how the chicken sexers That's certainly a novel and confusing entry in my search history. |
| |
| ▲ | lpellis a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think this might be one of the first times I didnt notice it, but just look through the comment history of https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=jackfranklyn , they all look the same. | | |
| ▲ | FrontierProject 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah on a second look GP might actually be on to something here. Jackfranklyn only makes top level comments, never dialogs with anyone, and I count at least 3 instances of "as someone who does this for a living" that are too seperated in scope to be plausibly realistic. |
| |
| ▲ | tripdout a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This article reads like AI | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Comment I don't like is a bot” is the new “Comment I don’t like is a product of the HN hivemind conspiracy”. | | |
| ▲ | dfajgljsldkjag a day ago | parent [-] | | The comment isn't saying anything controversial so why would I dislike it or want an excuse to throw shade on it? It's a bot. Period. | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter a day ago | parent [-] | | You might notice I wasn't responding to your specific claim about a particular comment but to a later post by a different poster commenting on a wider phenomenon. Perhaps stop trying so hard to insert the idea you want to argue against into posts where it doesn't actually exist just so you can have something to argue about. (Especially given there are many direct responses to your post actually arguing with your claim that you could instead argue with.) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | shpongled a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Unclear why you think this is ChatGPT, doesn't read like it at all to me. Many people - myself included - use punctuation to emphasize and clarify. | | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The tells are in the cadence. And the not x but y. And the last line that basically says nothing, while using big words. It's like "In conclusion", but worded differently. Enough tells for me to click on their history. They have the exact same cadence on every comment. It's a bit more sophisticated than "chatgpt write a reply", but it's still 100% aigen. Check it out, you'll see it after a few messages in their history. | |
| ▲ | dfajgljsldkjag a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That comment has tons of AI tells, not simply a few punctuation. | | |
| ▲ | shpongled a day ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it doesn't. The "I'm an expert at AI detection" crowd likes to cite things like "It's not X, it's Y" and other expression patterns without stopping to think that perhaps LLMs regurgitate those patterns because they are frequently used in written speech. I assign a <5% probability that GP comment was AI written. It's easy to tell, because AI writing has no soul. | | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer a day ago | parent [-] | | The message is 100% AI written. And if you click on their username and check their comment history you'll see that ALL their comments are "identical". Just do it, you'll see it by the 5th message. No one talks like that. No one talks like that on every message. | | |
| ▲ | ewoodrich a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Exactly, if a comment just feels a little off but you're unsure, do a quick scan of the profile, takes 15-30 seconds at most to get sufficient signal. If it's actually AI, the pattern becomes extremely obvious reading them back-to-back. If no clear pattern, I'll happily give them the benefit of the doubt at that point. I don't particularly care if someone occasionally cleans up a post with an LLM as long as there is a real person driving it and it's not overused. The other day on Reddit I saw a post in r/sysadmin that absolutely screamed karma farming AI and it was really depressing seeing a bunch of people defending them as the victim of an anti-AI mob without noticing the entire profile was variations of generic "Does anyone else dislike [Tool X], am I alone? [generic filler] What does everyone else think?" posts. | |
| ▲ | shpongled a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Looking at their profile I'm inclined to agree. But I think in isolation, this one post isn't setting off enough red flags for me. At the very least, they aren't just using default prompts. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sponnath a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think at this point it's not easy to accurately detect whether or not something is AI written. A real person can definitely write like this. In fact, that's probably where the LLMs got their writing style from. |
|
| |
| ▲ | prodigycorp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It doesn’t read like ChatGPT at all. It is well written, hardly a crime for a comment section. | | | |
| ▲ | igravious a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | GP defo did not tripper my AI slop detector :/ |
|
