| ▲ | bstsb 2 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
for the first time in a while on HN, i disagree with the characterisation as AI-generated. at most it was drafted with an LLM, but the final output is pretty human to me. they used the wrong it’s/its, made But. its own one-word sentence, didn’t capitalise HTML, and used “okayy” in parenthesis. all of this isn’t to criticise the writer - i enjoyed it more seeing these little imperfections that make up a blog post | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | fortuitous-frog an hour ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Looks largely AI-written, with some human edits: https://www.pangram.com/history/9afe7542-1085-4264-9691-2172... FWIW -- I'm not as repulsed by it as the parent comment. But I do want to substantiate that it _is_ heavily LLM-written. (If you're unfamiliar, Pangram has garnered a reputation as the leading LLM-detector, with a minimal rate of false positives; IME this has come with the tradeoff of being easy to manipulate/tweak your way into turning an LLM-generated piece of text into reporting a false negative, but for most folks that's worthwhile.) | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||