> em-dashes, “Not-this, but-that”

I've literally seen humans accusing other humans of being AI here on hackernews for these. Q.E.D.

datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re really going to make the claim that there are no counterexamples of human and AI output being indistinguishable on the internet? At least make the counterclaim that “those are from old models, not the newest ones”, that’s more intellectually invigorating than the comment you just provided.

▲

timschmidt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> claim that there are no counterexamples of human and AI output being indistinguishable on the internet?

Is that a claim I've made? I don't see it anywhere. I think a lot of people think that because they can get the AI to generate something silly or obviously incorrect, that invalidates other output which is on-par with top-level humans. It does not. Every human holds silly misconceptions as well. Brain farts. Fat fingers. Great lists of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. We all make mistakes.

It seems to me that symbolic thinking necessitates the use of somewhat lossy abstractions in place of the real thing, primarily limited by the information which can be usefully stored in the brain compared to the informational complexity of the systems being symbolized. Which neatly explains one cognitive pathology that humans and LLMs share. I think there are most certainly others. And I think all the humans I know and all the LLMs I've interacted with exist on a multidimensional continuum of intelligence with significant overlap.

I hereby rebuff your crude and libelous mischaracterization of my assertion. How's that? :)

▲

datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Is that a claim I've made?

Yes, you literally just said QED.

	▲	timschmidt 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Are we reading the same thread? You said AI works were easily distinguishable via em-dashes and "not this, but that" I said I have witnessed humans using that metric accuse other humans here on hackernews. Q.E.D. You've asserted that they are easily distinguished. Practitioners in the field fail to distinguish using the same criteria. Is that not dispositive? Seems like it to me. I claimed much earlier in the thread "I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs" which is consistent with "I think all the humans I know and all the LLMs I've interacted with exist on a multidimensional continuum of intelligence with significant overlap." Two ways of saying the same thing. Both of them suggesting that sometimes you may be able to tell it's the output of an AI or Human, sometimes not. Sometimes the things coming out of the AI or the Human might be smart in a way we recognize, sometimes not. And recognizing that humans already exist on quite a broad scale of intelligences in many axes.