| ▲ | temp7000 10 hours ago |
| Is it me, or does the article sound like LLM output? The pattern "It's not mere X — it's Y", occurs like 4 times in the text :v |
|
| ▲ | Andrex 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I can't believe you'd impugn the high moral standards of "gizmoweek dot com". |
|
| ▲ | BeetleB 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't care if it's written by an LLM. The problem with the article is the complete lack of details. No benchmarks on the iPhone capable models. No details, whatsoever. Human or LLM - the article is a whole lot of nothing. |
| |
| ▲ | doliveira 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Funnily enough, to me these aphorisms (?) sound almost like the replicant test in Blaze Runner. Like these are the unit bit of "nudging" | | | |
| ▲ | veunes 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This article is all fluff because real benne marketing. If they mentioned that a 4B model on an iPhone 16 drains 15% of the battery for a single long prompt and triggers hard thermal throttling after 20 seconds, nobody would be clicking on headlines about "commercial viability" fwiw | | |
| ▲ | Domenic_S 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I ran several Gemma 4 quants on my 24gb mac mini, and with proper context size tuning they're quick enough I guess, but I would really love to see them working well on an iphone with 2/3gb of ram... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | caminante 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ran it through Claude, Grok, whatever...for me, they all flagged issues (no sources, punchy phrases with repetition,...) with these content farms. My favorite: couldn't even prove the author is a real person. They all found no record! |
| |
| ▲ | itissid 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | As someone said we live in a strange but amazing era, where although it has never been easier to be deceived, but its _also_ much easier to uncover said deception especially on the internet. | | |
| ▲ | ryandvm 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Or at least think you've uncovered deception. It's not clear to me yet that any of these "AI detectors" are reliable, and if they are, it's just an arms race. | |
| ▲ | walthamstow 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's much faster and simpler to assume everything on the internet is crooked |
|
|
|
| ▲ | figmert 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > :v I guess I found the millennial. I haven't seen that in so long! |
| |
|
| ▲ | altruios 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is like the AI is training us to avoid certain language patterns. I rebel at the hostage of weak language: for strong language is next. |
| |
|
| ▲ | odo1242 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It does in fact sound like LLM output |
|
| ▲ | mtremsal 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| An AI slop pattern so widespread it’s now referred to as “it’s not pee pee it’s poo poo”. |
| |
|
| ▲ | wtyvn 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Smells like slop to me, looks like the site exists solely to garner search hits. |
|
| ▲ | kbouw 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You would be correct. Ran the article through GPTZero, 100% AI. |
| |
| ▲ | subscribed 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | These detectors are a scam falsely flagging non-native English speakers: https://plagiarismcheckerai.app/ai-detector-false-positives-... At this point relying on their judgement is beyond folly. | | |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | cubefox 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's both ironic an confusing that this website itself promotes an AI detector. |
| |
| ▲ | xd1936 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://redd.it/13mft8s | | | |
| ▲ | 71bw 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Would not trust any of these tools in the slightest. | |
| ▲ | devmor 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI detectors that use text as a basis are not real. It is fundamentally impossible for them to exist. | | |
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Huh? LLM output doesn't have the variety of human output, since they operate in fixed fashion - statistical inference followed by formulaic sampling. Additionally, the statistics used by LLMs are going be be similar across different LLMs since at scale its just "the statistics of the internet". Human output has much more variety, partly because we're individuals with our own reading/writing histories (which we're drawing upon when writing), and partly because we're not so formulaic in the way we generate. Individuals have their own writing styles and vocabulary, and one can identify specific authors to a reasonable degree of accuracy based on this. It's a bit like detecting cheating in a chess tournament. If an unusually high percentage of a player's moves are optimal computer moves, then there is a high likelihood that they were computer generated. Computers and humans don't pick moves in the same way, and humans don't have the computational power to always find "optimal" moves. Similarly with the "AI detectors" used to detect if kids are using AI to write their homework essays, or to detect if blog posts are AI generated ... if an unusually high percentage of words are predictable by what came before (the way LLMs work), and if those statistics match that of an LLM, then there is an extremely high chance that it was written by an LLM. Can you ever be 100% sure? Maybe not, but in reality human written text is never going to have such statistical regularity, and such an LLM statistical signature, that an AI detector gives it more than a 10-20% confidence of being AI, so when the detector says it's 80%+ confident something was AI generated, that effectively means 100%. There is of course also content that is part human part AI (human used LLM to fix up their writing), which may score somewhere in the middle. | | |
| ▲ | devmor 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | A human can easily produce output that looks like anything an LLM can produce, therefor an LLM detector that can say "this is 100% written by AI" cannot exist. It's really that simple. > Can you ever be 100% sure? Maybe not The commenter I was replying to claimed exactly this. Their AI detector showed that the text was "100%" AI generated. | |
| ▲ | ben_w 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > LLM output doesn't have the variety of human output, since they operate in fixed fashion - statistical inference followed by formulaic sampling. This is the wrong thing to look at; your chess analogy is much stronger, the detection method similar (if you can figure out a prompt that generates something close to the content, it almost certainly isn't human origin). But to why the thing I'm quoting doesn't work: If you took, say, web comic author Darren Gav Bleuel, put him in a sci-fi mass duplication incident make 950 million of him, and had them all talking and writing all over the internet, people would very quickly learn to recognise the style, which would have very little variety because they'd all be forks of the same person. Indeed, LLMs are very good at presenting other styles than their defaults, better at this than most humans, and what gives away LLMs is that (1) very few people bother to ask them to act other than their defaults, and (2) all the different models, being trained in similar ways on similar data with similar architectures, are inherently similar to each other. | | |
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | An LLM is just computer function that predicts next word based on the input you give it. It doesn't make any difference what the input is (e.g. please respond in style X) - the function doesn't change, and the statistical signature of how it works will still be there. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself. Ask an AI to generate some text and give it to the AI detector below (paste your text, then click on scan). Now ask the AI to generate in a different style and see if it causes the detector to fail. https://app.gptzero.me/ | |
| ▲ | newsoftheday 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What if the prompt includes, "Produce output that doesn't sound like an AI generated it."? | | |
| |
| ▲ | goodmythical 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | watsonL1F7 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
