Do you regularly find text content that you know is AI written (but is not marked as such)? Because honestly I don't, and it must exist in decent quantity by now. Or perhaps it's still sparse?

▲

etherus 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Have a look here [1] and here [2] - I think they are good resources, but fallible in the long run. I think yes, I do, often confirmed by communication with people I know (i.e. i suspect they have used AI to make something -> I ask). This falls victim to confirmation bias, though. I suspect a nontrivial amount of writing I read is AI generated without me realising, and I'm wary also of falsely flagging AI-generated content that is actually from humans.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAI_or_not_quiz [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASigns_of_AI_writin...

▲

H8crilA 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Okay, but the answers in [1] look something like:

AI generated. Some of the clues include:

- Most obviously, a failed ISBN checksum

- Other source-to-text integrity issues; for example, the WWF source says very little about Malaysia specifically, only mentions Sunda tigers (Panthera tigris sondaica), and does not mention tapirs at all

- Very short yet consistent paragraph length

- Generic "see also" links, one of which is redlinked

This is not the sort of thing that I pay attention to unless I'm doing detailed research. And even then I'd probably have a bot check these for me, ironically, since it's such a mechanical job. At the very least detecting AI like this requires conscious effort.

	▲	slopinthebag 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, but like, what about [2]? I can easily tell AI writing. I'm sure plenty goes under the radar, but I can still catch a lot.

▲

OrangePilled 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the second resource that you linked to is valuable. The first is useless unless you're a Wikipedia editor, the significance of verifying citations not withstanding.

The gap between LLM-generated writing and the composite style of the average Wikipedia page is more narrow than most people may believe.

▲

jeffreyrogers 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, here, reddit, X, at work in people's emails and status reports.

▲

Aurornis 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You will start to recognize it over time. The major AI models each have their own voice and patterns that they overuse.

The more you see those patterns the more you start recognizing them. By now I can recognize quickly if a blog post or README.md was generated by Claude or ChatGPT because the signs are so obvious.

Even Hacker News comments that are AI written are easy to spot if they weren't edited. I know I'm not alone because when I recognize an AI comment I check their comment history and find other people calling out their AI-generated submissions, too.

Learning how to recognize the output of the popular AI models is becoming a critical business skill, too. You need to be able to separate out the content from someone who was doing real work that you should take seriously as opposed to the output of someone who is having ChatGPT produce volumes of text that they don't review. The people who do that will waste your time.

▲

jasonfarnon 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't see how to interpret your claims. How do you yourself know that you're right when you "recognize" Claude or ChatGPT? How do you know how much of the text you don't recognize as any LLM is actually LLM-generated? My recollection is whenever I've seen data on this--the educators who think they can spot students cheating--the conclusion is people are really bad at identifying LLM-generated content.

▲

dghlsakjg 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s very obvious if you leave the default tone. If you specifically ask it to hide its ai voice and make it appear human, it does a really good job. Even better if you give it an example of the writing style.

Ask it to write in the style of patio11 or someone else with a distinctive tone, and it will do a remarkable job.

It will pass pretty consistently. Not sure I love it.

▲

threethirtytwo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a temporary problem. Look at how fast things are progressing. Things will improve until none of this matters because the output is indistinguishable.

	▲	shimman 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I wish I could be this confident about the future.

▲

bonoboTP 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, often, and often here on HN or Substack if I point it out, it doesn't lead to anything good. Many don't recognize it, many do, the author gets defensive etc.

This article doesn't have the tells, it looks human written.

▲

insin 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Literally every day from green accounts on Hacker News, and in many, many TFAs.

▲

furyofantares 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My comment history is months of me pointing it out about articles here. You're just not noticing it, it's everywhere and is extremely obvious to me.

It's possible I should envy you, I'm not sure.

▲

htnthrow11220 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I see it all the time in basically every form of text communication. What makes you think you are not seeing it?

	▲	bonoboTP 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I found that many people don't have a radar for this. They may know about delve, emdashes, tapestry, multifaceted or "not just X but y" and if these are not there they don't see it.

▲

ThrowawayR2 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's at least two comments in this submission from green accounts if you enable showdead.

▲

icedchai 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All the time, especially on LinkedIn.

▲

surgical_fire 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, all the time.

HN and YouTube are the worst offenders for me.

▲

tayo42 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm pretty sure this was written or heavily edited by an llm.

https://www.seriouseats.com/eggplant-grilling-tips-11759622