If you can't be bothered to write it, why should I bother reading it?

As much as I disagree with the general consensus that the article follows of "delegating non-automatable work that requires thinking and understanding to the machine because it is boring, even though the machine is unreliable", according to Pangram this does seem human-written (confidence low).

AI detectors are criticized but classifying stuff into two boxes is probably one of the stuff that is the easiest to measure the accuracy of (as long as one does not put the test set in the training set...).

(well one could see the irony of using ML to detect ML text while complaining about people not caring about understanding anymore, but that's one case where the machine is more reliable than the human)

▲

PxldLtd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Hmm, if you read his previous blog posts pre-ai the tone is not much different. I hate the idea that this dude may just sound like AI at this point by accident.

▲

horsawlarway 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It somewhat boggles my mind that there are an incredible number of persistent, useless, and annoying comments on here every day accusing any and every article of being AI slop.

AI is a machine that generates content that is supposed to be statistically identical to the content that it was trained on, and it's trained on the content posted here.

The content here will look like AI generated content, and the AI generated content will look like the content here. By fucking definition.

---

Instead we get a bunch of pseudo-intellectual, hokey about how "my AI radar is perfect!" and "I can always spot it because of [insert bullshit about detecting style that's semantically the same as the pre-existing stuff]".

It's just... exhausting.

Yes - there is a lot of AI content on here. Just like there were a bunch of (and still are) under whelming marketing articles on here. Just like there's STILL a bunch of interesting and engaging articles (some of them even written by AI!).

Just vote based on the content and move on with your lives.

People out here wasting time and energy on trying to burn witches. If you want a "sure-fire" AI free experience... Go talk to a real person, in person. Otherwise...

	▲	DonHopkins an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>"my AI radar is perfect!" ...or "my transdar is perfect!" It's just like how right wing MAGA bigots harasses cis women (like Michelle Obama and so many others), up to and beyond peeking into their bathroom stalls and violently confronting them, all in the name of protecting women (who they never gave a flying fuck about before), because they don't believe they conform to their traditional ideals of feminity.

▲

DonHopkins an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's almost as if AI trained on the writings of real people.

Note to poszlem before your message is flagged and disappears:

>"We are highly confident this text was AI generated"

And now you're the one literally posting AI generated content, confidently hallucinating that it can detect AI generated content, to hacker news.

Physician, cure thyself.

▲

poszlem 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"We are highly confident this text was AI generated" from gptzero, which is not perfect but is pretty spot on quite often. Just another small hint.

I put his older blog posts there: "We are highly confident this text is entirely human"