As a side note, you can tell this wasn't written by an AI by the first sentence:

> mommy, I heard you got cooked! I heard that a robot solved the math problem you worked on for your whole career! OOF!

My 8yo talks exactly like that. I could totally imagine him saying this, the same way, at the dining room table.

I asked ChatGPT "pretend you're an 8/9 year old today. how would you insult your mom about having her job be replaced by an AI?", and the responses it offered were:

> “Mom, AI took your job because apparently even robots were like, ‘Yeah… we can do this better.’”

> “Mom, congratulations! You got replaced by a computer. Even Siri has a job now and you don’t!”

> “Mom, AI took your job? Dang. I guess even a robot looked at your work and said, ‘I got this.’”

> “Don’t worry, Mom. You can still be useful… like teaching the AI how to make my lunch.”

All of these seem to have a vaguely Millennial flavor, aside from being pretty awkward and mechanical roasts. Trust the children and linguistic drift to be the best AI detector.

▲

stratos123 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure why one'd expect Scott Aaronson's posts to be AI-written, but sure enough, Pangram detects 0% of this post as AI.

▲

matwood 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s funny when people who are skeptical AI use an AI checker that is also AI and believe its results 100%.

	▲	stratos123 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You're probably still stuck with old beliefs from when all available AI checkers were snake oil. Pangram is, to my knowledge, the only AI checker today that actually passes accuracy assessments. See e.g. on their own site: https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals (Incidentally, if you asked me a few years ago I'd have predicted that reliable AI detection was impossible. I still suspect that it's impossible in general and that Pangram would break as soon as companies figure out how to make LLMs stop all sounding the same - but until then, it'll work fine.)

▲

matwood 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apparently the insult now is to call someone AI when they are being boring or bland. Kids have a surprising ability to pick up on things.

▲

dist-epoch a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The more obvious problem is that those jokes, even if terrible, are too advanced for an 8yo to make.

Reminds me of the memes with the little girl making astute comments about the patriarchy to her father.

	▲	shoobiedoo a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Mother dearest, it pains my effusive tendencies to inform you the untimely death of your life's work by the hands of a mere transistor-- moreover, my incontinence briefs have reached their capacity.
	▲	nostrademons 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Eh I don't think the content is out of line with what an 8yo understands. Mine tells stories about bombs flying in the Russia/Ukraine war, which required a lesson about tact because some of his classmates are both Russian and Ukrainian refugees and this subject may be a little close to home (literally, his best friend's grandma lives in Ukraine right now).
	▲	dodger-dog 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yeah, it takes a different bs detector depending on the context.

▲

john_strinlai a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

i added "use current trendy lingo" and the results were a bit less mechanical sounding. one of them included "cooked", another had "negative aura".

i used the free google ai: (deleted the examples... but they were vaguely close to what i hear my grandkids say.)

edit: neat, insta-flagged despite hundreds of non-ai comments that have never been flagged. i would have thought that hn would use some heuristics in their ai detection but i suppose not.

▲

djhn 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I appreciate the counter argument, even as a chat bot skeptic.

However, there is the fact that you had to know how to poke the machine so it plucks the right vocabulary out of the training data.

There is very clearly no theory of mind: no inherent internalised modelling of how a human of a particular age thinks, speaks and what they do or do not know. These are the most obvious cracks in the “LLMs are (or will be) the superintelligence” narrative.

▲

12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

esafak 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How hard is it to add that? We have plenty of writing from people of all ages to draw a model from. They just have not got round to it.

	▲	recursive 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It depends who's doing the prompting.

▲

posnet a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]