| ▲ | johnfn 18 hours ago |
| I suspect this is AI generated, but it’s quite high quality, and doesn’t have any of the telltale signs that most AI generated content does. How did you generate this? It’s great. |
|
| ▲ | AstroBen 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Their comments are full of "it's not x, it's y" over and over. Short pithy sentences. I'm quite confident it's AI written, maybe with a more detailed prompt than the average I guess this is the end of the human internet |
| |
| ▲ | prussia 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To give them the benefit of the doubt, people who talk to AI too much probably start mimicking its style. | |
| ▲ | 4k93n2 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | yea, i was suspicious by the second paragraph but was sure once i got to "that’s not engineering, it’s cosplay" | | |
| ▲ | AstroBen 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's also the wording. The weird phrases "Glorified Google search with worse footnotes" what on earth does that mean? AI has a distinct feel to it | | |
| ▲ | lxgr 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And with enough motivated reasoning, you can find AI vibes in almost every comment you don’t agree with. For better or worse, I think we might have to settle on “human-written until proven otherwise”, if we don’t want to throw “assume positive intent” out the window entirely on this site. | |
| ▲ | testdelacc1 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dude is swearing up and down that they came up with the text on their own. I agree with you though, it reeks of LLMs. The only alternative explanation is that they use LLMs so much that they’ve copied the writing style. |
| |
| ▲ | plaguuuuuu 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I've had that exact phrase pop up from an LLM when I asked it for a more negative code review |
|
|
|
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your intuition on AI is out of date by about 6 months. Those telltale signs no longer exist. It wasn't AI generated. But if it was, there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference. |
| |
| ▲ | catlifeonmars 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m confused by this. I still see this kind of phrasing in LLM generated content, even as recent as last week (using Gemini, if that matters). Are you saying that LLMs do not generate text like this, or that it’s now possible to get text that doesn’t contain the telltale “its not X, it’s Y”? | |
| ▲ | comp_throw7 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > But if it was there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference. This is false. There are many human-legible signs, and there do exist fairly reliable AI detection services (like Pangram). | | |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've tested some of those services and they weren't very reliable. | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If such a thing did exist, it would exist only until people started training models to hide from it. Negative feedback is the original "all you need." |
| |
| ▲ | velox_neb 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It wasn't AI generated. You're lying: https://www.pangram.com/history/94678f26-4898-496f-9559-8c4c... Not that I needed pangram to tell me that, it's obvious slop. | | |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I wouldn't know how to prove to you otherwise other then to tell you that I have seen these tools show incorrect results for both AI generated text and human written text. | |
| ▲ | lxgr 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Good thing you had a stochastic model backing up (with “low confidence”, no less) your vague intuition of a comment you didn’t like being AI-written. | |
| ▲ | XenophileJKO 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I must be a bot because I love existential dread, that's a great phrase. I feel like they trigger a lot on literate prose. | | |
| ▲ | lxgr 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sad times when the only remaining way to convince LLM luddites of somebody’s humanity is bad writing. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | CamperBob2 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| (edit: removed duplicate comment from above, not sure how that happened) |
| |
|
| ▲ | CamperBob2 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's bizarre. The same account was previously arguing in favor of emergent reasoning abilities in another thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46453084 ) -- I voted it up, in fact! Turing test failed, I guess. (edit: fixed link) |
| |
| ▲ | threethirtytwo 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I thought the mockery and sarcasm in my piece was rather obvious. | | | |
| ▲ | habinero 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We need a name for the much more trivial version of the Turing test that replaces "human" with "weird dude with rambling ideas he clearly thinks are very deep" I'm pretty sure it's like "can it run DOOM" and someone could make an LLM that passes this that runs on an pregnancy test |
|
