3 ms·

The article is as bland and vanilla as HN comments complaining about articles being written by ChatGPT without providing any sort of evidence :)

• benterix 2y ago
  What kind of evidence do you need? It could be summarized in 3 sentences - it's wordy and repetitive. A human could also write such a thing if paid by line but in 2024 I'd rather assume it's a human + LLM.
• 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  after dealing with LLMs for a while, you just know. >It is essential for property owners in Spain to be proactive in protecting their assets against potential squatting. This includes ensuring that properties are properly secured, regularly monitored, and that any signs of illegal occupation are promptly addressed with legal action. For squatters, it is important to be aware of the legal risks associated with occupying a property without consent, as well as the potential social and ethical considerations of such actions. just this paragraph alone is as blatant as misshapen fingers and distorted text in AI-generated images.
  • diggan 2y ago
    I'm 99% sure the article was originally written in Spanish and then (either by human or machine), translated to English, as Idealista is a Spanish company. Jumping to the conclusion that a LLM has written it, when you don't even seem to understand the context, seems really rash. But then this is HN, so you're forgiven.
• mbowcut2 2y ago
  Touché. I put the first paragraph in GPTZero, and it says 100% AI generated. Unfortunately, AI detectors are notoriously bad, giving all kinds of false positives, which goes to my initial point that it is largely a gut feeling. But if you look at other articles posted on the site by the same author they also come up as 100% AI generated on GPTZero, and they also fail the gut test.