| |
| ▲ | monooso 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's just writing. I frequently write like that. This insistence that certain stylistics patterns are "tell-tale" signs that an article was written by AI makes no sense, particularly when you consider that whatever stylistic ticks an LLM may possess are a result of it being trained on human writing. | | |
| ▲ | croemer 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | These are just some of the good examples I found. My hunch that this is substantially LLM-generated is based on more than that. In my head it's like a Bayesian classifier, you look at all the sentences and judge whether each is more or less likely to be LLM vs human generated. Then you add prior information like that the author did the research using Claude - which increases the likelihood that they also use Claude for writing. Maybe your detector just isn't so sensitive (yet) or maybe I'm wrong but I have pretty high confidence at least 10% of sentences were LLM-generated. Yes, the stylistic patterns exist in human speech but RLHF has increased their frequency. Also, LLM writing has a certain monotonicity that human writing often lacks. Which is not surprising: the machine generates more or less the most likely text in an algorithmic manner. Humans don't. They wrote a few sentences, then get a coffee, sleep, write a few more. That creates more variety than an LLM can. Fun exercise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_or_not_quiz | | |
| ▲ | monooso 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Here's an alternative way of thinking about this... Someone probably expended a lot of time and effort planning, thinking about, and writing an interesting article, and then you stroll by and casually accuse them of being a bone idle cheat, with no supporting evidence other than your "sensitive detector" and a bunch of hand-wavy nonsense that adds up to naught. | | |
| ▲ | xmcqdpt2 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | To start, this is more or less an advertising piece for their product. It's pretty clear that they want to sell you Allium. And that's fine! They are allowed! But even if that was written by a human, they were compensated for it. They didn't expend lots of effort and thinking, it's their job. More importantly, it's an article about using Claude from a company about using Claude. I think on the balance it's very likely that they would use Claude to write their technical blog posts. | | |
| ▲ | monooso 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They didn't expend lots of effort and thinking, it's their job. Your job doesn't require you to think or expend effort? |
| |
| ▲ | kenjackson 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | While I agree with the sentiment, using AI to write the final draft of the article isn’t cheating. People may not like it, but it’s more a stylistic preference. | | | |
| ▲ | bookofjoe 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yet another way the mere possibility of AI/LLM being involved diminishes the value of ALL text. If there is constant vigilance on the part of the reader as to how it was created, meaning and value become secondary, a sure path to the death of reading as a joy. |
| |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Those aren’t good examples - that’s just LLMs living for free in your head. |
| |
| ▲ | oscaracso 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Principal Skinner tries to pass off the hamburgers from a near-by fast food restaurant for an old family recipe, 'steamed hams,' and his guest's probing into the kitchen mishaps is met with increasingly incredible explanations. | |
| ▲ | brookst 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m so glad the witch hunt has moved on to phrasing so I get less grief for my em dashes. | |
| ▲ | gcr 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | See also: “I'm Kenyan. I Don't Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me” by Marcus Olang', https://marcusolang.substack.com/p/im-kenyan-i-dont-write-li... For what it’s worth, Pangram reports that Marcus’ article is 100% LLM-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/640288b9-e16b-4f76-a730-8000... | | |
| ▲ | croemer 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | In theory, wouldn't be too hard be to settle the question if whether he used ChatGPT to write it: get Olang to write a few paragraphs by hand, then have people judge (blindly) if it's the same style as the article. Which one sounds more like ChatGPT. | | |
| ▲ | jmalicki 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | When people judge blindly, the are more likely to think the human is the AI and the AI is the human. 73% judged GPT 4.5 (edit: had incorrectly said 4o before)to be the human. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674 Not only are people bad at judging this, but are directionally wrong. | | |
| ▲ | nothinkjustai 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is research showing the contrary that is far more convincing: > Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text, even without any specialized training or feedback. In fact, the majority vote among five such “expert” annotators misclassifies only 1 of 300 articles, significantly outperforming most commercial and open-source detectors we evaluated even in the presence of evasion tactics like paraphrasing and humanization. https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v2 | | |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The times I've written articles, and those have gone through multiple rounds of reviews (by humans) with countless edits each time, before it ends up being published, I wonder if I'd pass that test in those cases. Initial drafts with my scattered thoughts usually are very different from the published end results, even without involving multiple reviewers and editors. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 360MustangScope 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I hate that I can’t write em dashes freely anymore without people accusing the writing of being AI generated. Even though they are perfect for usage in writing down thoughts and notes. | | |
| ▲ | d1sxeyes 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One thing you can try⸺admittedly it's not quite correct⸺is replacing them with a two-em dash. I've never seen an AI use one, and it looks pretty funky. | | | |
| ▲ | croemer 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have nothing against em dashes. As long as your writing is human, experienced readers will be able to tell it's human. Only less experienced ones will use all or nothing rules. Em dashes just increase the likelihood that the text was LLM generated. They aren't proof. | | |
| ▲ | brookst 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That nuance is lost on the majority of anti-AI folks who’ve learned they get positive social reactions by declaring essentially everything to be AI written and condemnable. “An em dash… they’re a witch!”… “it’s not just X, it’s Y… they’re a witch!” | | |
| ▲ | andersonpico 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > anti-AI folks who’ve learned they get positive social reactions by declaring essentially everything to be AI written and condemnable. that's a strawman alright; all the comments complaining how they can't use their writing style without being ganged up on are positive karma from my angle, so I'm not sure the "positive social reactions" are really aligned with your imagination. Or does it only count when it aligns with your persecution complex? | | |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | You have the same problem apparently. You think it’s okay to go witch hunting and accuse people with no real evidence. |
|
| |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Evidently there are no experienced readers who post AI accusations. | | |
| ▲ | gopher_space 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Same weight as "there are no experienced men who'll ask a woman if she's pregnant." |
|
| |
| ▲ | NetMageSCW 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do you care what others accuse you of? |
| |
| ▲ | nothinkjustai 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, it’s pretty obviously AI written. Not sure why you’re running so much interference for them…are you affiliated with this company? | |
| ▲ | butlike 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | tapoxi 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is my exact writing style - I'm screwed. | | |
| ▲ | croemer 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I doubt you write like that. Where can I find your writing other than your comments which IMO don't read like the blog post? | | |
| |
| ▲ | TruffleLabs 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is just writing; terse maybe and maybe not grammatically correct, but people write like that. | | |
| ▲ | croemer 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not just terseness, it's the rhythm and "it's not x, it's y". In fact, the latter is the opposite of terseness. LLMs love to tell you what things are not way more than people do. See https://www.blakestockton.com/dont-write-like-ai-1-101-negat... (The irony that I started with "it's not just" isn't lost on me) | | |
| ▲ | wk_end 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > (The irony that I started with "it's not just" isn't lost on me) But an LLM wouldn't write "It's not just X, it's the Y and Z". No disrespect to your writing intended, but adding that extra clause adds just the slightest bit of natural slack to the flow of the sentence, whereas everything LLMs generate comes out like marketing copy that's trying to be as punchy and cloying as possible at all times. |
|
| |
| ▲ | djmips 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Here’s how the bug might have manifested." |
|
