| ▲ | leothetechguy a day ago |
| pangram reports the text as 100% AI generated. I was about to analyze the short story and think about the intentions of the author, it's social commentary. And you have wasted my time... This needs to stop. No I'm not talking about the AI. I'm talking about the insanity that is presenting me this text and putting your name on it, exploiting my trust. |
|
| ▲ | vinzenzu a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| There is no way to tell if something is AI-generated or not. These classifiers produce a lot of false positives.
I read the story and enjoyed it, even if I don't agree with the social commentary. |
| |
| ▲ | grey-area a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s actually pretty easy to tell. There are multiple tells in this story that it was generated. Claude should get a credit. | | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | vova_hn2 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > I was about to analyze the short story and think about the intentions of the author, it's social commentary. I mean, I doubt that the author just said "write me a short story" and that's it. So, there are still some intentions behind the text that the author put into the prompt. Although, I agree that I'd rather read the prompt [0]. [0] https://claytonwramsey.com/blog/prompt/ |
| |
| ▲ | saulpw a day ago | parent [-] | | I challenge the author to post their prompts and unless they one-shotted this (which seems unlikely), then I can basically guarantee you that you would not rather read the prompts. In particular because 'the prompts' are a back-and-forth with the chatbot and if you think you don't like reading an AI-assisted short story, you really don't like reading a chat transcript (for one thing, it'll be at least 10x as long and with a lot more and worse chatbot output that the human will try to clean up). | | |
| ▲ | pona-a a day ago | parent | next [-] | | When ChatGPT was still a new thing, I exported all of my conversations to a Markdown dir to try and reflect on what I spent a few months using it for. The AI responses were just walls of useless text, skimmed for a single most trivial point to prompt the next question, and re-reading them without the usual dopamine high felt even more grating. I found most success just writing a sed pipeline to remove all chatbot responses and only read my replies, grepping the original for missing context. | |
| ▲ | vova_hn2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 'the prompts' are a back-and-forth with the chatbot I think, reading just the human inputs would be enough to get what they were trying to do. > it'll be at least 10x as long I think that even human inputs + short summary of the first draft + short summary of the changes made for each subsequent iteration will be significantly shorter than the whole thing. | |
| ▲ | jacobgkau a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the context of discerning the author's social commentary intentions, both the initial prompt and the entire conversation they have correcting things would indeed be more valuable than just the output text. |
|
|
