Calling it "witch hunting" is just dishonest. That term implies a baseless overreaction to a heavily exaggerated or imagined threat.

That's hardly what's going on here. Unlike witches, AI slop really is everywhere and it's pretty clear that this article is slop.

I find complaining about AI callouts to be itself deeply distasteful although it would take some thought to put my finger on the exact reasons why.

▲

teiferer a day ago | parent [-]

Yes AI slop is prevalent. But the casualties that get thrown under the bus are also real, don't you agree? Is it really worth it to sacrifice those? In the name of the larger good?

I'm arguing that we're losing something by doing so, as a community.

> I find complaining about AI callouts

If they are correct then I'm all for it. But just suspicions turned into statements of fact are not helping anybody. People used em dashes before LLMs Not nearly as much as LLMs, but superficially judging people isn't doing any good.

I'd compare this with pitchforks coming out agains criminal immigrants. Yes, some immigrants are criminal. Doesn't mean that if you stand in central Copenhagen and have a dark skinned person in front of you that it's a criminal.

▲

wrsh07 a day ago | parent [-]

The rule of thumb is simple: if most of a user or author's writing is consistently human-generated, then I think we are very happy giving them the benefit of the doubt if one article or snippet flags the actually good ai detector

Unfortunately, many of the largest voices against pangram simply don't like it because it gives their lies less credibility.

I don't mind reading llm writing, indeed, I read more llm writing per day than most. But if you're using LLMs to increase the level of slop (blog posts, comments, tweets, etc) then we should call people out.

It's a colossal waste of everyone's time and attention, and we should be mad about it.

Late edit: if people are actually writing and it's consistently flagged by pangram (this is a statement I have not yet seen validated), the pangram folks are extremely proactive and excited to understand what's going on. This notion that somehow the authors of slop are victims is complete nonsense.

	▲	teiferer a day ago \| parent [-]
		> if most of a user or author's writing is consistently human-generated, then I think we are very happy giving them the benefit of the doubt if one article or snippet flags the actually good ai detector I would agree to that approach. But that didn't happen here. Nobody has done that due diligence and folks are just blindly accusing. The author has published for many years. That's what I'm calling out. > This notion that somehow the authors of slop are victims is complete nonsense. Strawman? I didn't claim that or anything close to it. I also find the prevalence of slop writing hugely annoying.