"It's still pretty obvious and still much worse than human prose"

You have no idea how many false positives and how many false negatives you have in your judgement. It is indeed impossible to differentiate between badly written human text and somewhat good written llm text.

▲

lelanthran 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> You have no idea how many false positives and how many false negatives you have in your judgement.

The default LLM style is pretty deterministic. "Not X, Not Y. Just Z", etc.

There are phrases and cadences which are very rare in human prose (<5%) but unusually common (+95% occurrences in LLM prose). It is not unreasonable to look at content which is 95% LLM tells and conclude that that an LLM authored it.

I have noted, IRL, that those people who read very little, and only read when they have to (work docs, etc) are literally unable to tell that a piece of prose sounds like an LLM even when it has about 12 occurrences of "Not X. Just Y" or "Not X, Not Y. Just Z" in as many paragraphs.

	▲	Izkata 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's really similar to special effects in tv/movies: Whenever there's something new it's hard to tell, but as we get used to it and start seeing the patterns it becomes easier to tell. The older the special effects are the more obvious it is. Quite often you can just kind of tell if something was special effects or practical effects without being sure why. And there are always some really well done ones that slip past everyone, or odd lighting that makes it look fake (a thread a day or two ago on here about a legal case involving a photograph, some people in the comments thought it was a painting).
	▲	jswelker 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You've found the "holy grail" of LLM writing differentiation! Your opinion is in the "Goldilocks zone" between vacuous and paternalistic!