Remix.run Logo
sarreph 10 hours ago

How would you prove that?

Cthulhu_ 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They don't, hence the suspicion instead of a definite assertion. And suspicions are easy, because what are the consequences if it's false? None.

Anyway your comment smells AI generated, I can tell from some of the pixels and seeing quite a few shoops in my time.

Der_Einzige 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't need to "prove it", because all I have to do is link this:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01754

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01491

https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-short.47/

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06166

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/wzveh_v1

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-acl.987/

https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.426/

https://aclanthology.org/2025.iwsds-1.37/

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.14.24307373v...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21522715251379...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21817

Either they used an LLM to write part of it, or the linguistic mind virus infected them and now they speak a little bit like an LLM.

myrmidon 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Relevant excerpt from your own wiki guideline:

"Do not rely too much on your own judgment. [...] if you are an expert user of LLMs and you tag 10 pages as being AI-generated, you've probably falsely accused one editor."

Never accuse people of LLM writing based on short comments, your false positive rate is invariably going to be way too high to be acceptable given the very limited material.

It's just not worth it: Even if you correctly accuse 9/10 times, you are being toxic to that false positive case for basically no gain.