3 ms·
People over-update when they see an em-dash. If you compute the posterior probability, you'll realize that seeing an em-dash hardly shifts the probability that
by kelseyfrog 1y ago
People over-update when they see an em-dash. If you compute the posterior probability, you'll realize that seeing an em-dash hardly shifts the probability that text is AI generated.
- pimlottc 1y ago“Over-update”? Do you mean “overreact”?
- jdiff 1y agoI'm guessing over-update their opinion/view, but that's the first I've run into that turn of phrase.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoNo, I mean over-update in a Bayesian capacity. As in, they are updating their prior probability using evidence to arrive at the posterior probability.
- firesteelrain 1y agoHuh?
- cthor 1y agoSee em dash in text Think text much more likely from robot than first thought Grug say this change too big from just one em dash
- ggm 1y ago"I don't often jargon, but when I do jargon I jargon like Chuck Norris"
- smohare 1y ago[dead]
- anon84873628 1y agoYou might even realize that the AI is using the em-dash precisely because of how often it was used in the training text.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoThat's a fair point. I'll admit that LLM em-dash usage likely matches its prevalence in the corpus. However, online message boards and chat is a subset of that corpus that may have a significantly different distribution of em-dash prevalence. This is necessary nuance that I'll have take into consideration. Thank you.
- anon84873628 1y agoEh, I wasn't trying to put you on blast or anything. Obviously there is a lot of nuance to how/why the LLM uses them. I just think the whole "em dash == AI" thing is stupid and way overblown. I wish the people who say that would realize it obviously learned them from somewhere.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoYou're good, friend. I didn't feel blasted at all. It was a good point