4 ms·

Ironically, even this piece is significantly AI-generated: - Primarily relies on a single piece of evidence from the curl project, and expands it into multiple

Ironically, even this piece is significantly AI-generated: - Primarily relies on a single piece of evidence from the curl project, and expands it into multiple paragraphs - "But here's the gut punch:", "You're not building ... You're addressing ...", "This is the fundamental problem:" and so many other instances of Linkedin-esque writing. - The listicle under "What Might Actually Work"

nixpulvis 1y ago
I'm so sick of people claiming things sound like AI, when it's so easily not true. Between this and the flip side of AI-slop it's getting really frustrating out here online.
- chemotaxis 1y ago
  I think people sometimes jump the gun over small things (emdashes, etc). That said, in this instance, your anger is very likely misdirected. The article is almost certainly substantially AI-generated.
  - nixpulvis 1y ago
    I mean, I guess I just don't care as much, as long as the author proof read it and it says what they want it to say. Just like I don't care if an AI submits a vulnerability report that is actually real.
- progbits 1y ago
  From the article itself (presumably added later): Disclosure: Certain sections of this content were grammatically refined/updated using AI assistance
- bluGill 1y ago
  Problem is AI sounds like normal people. There are a few clues, but good writers have always sounded like AI - except good writers are not making things up.
  - dec0dedab0de 1y ago
    AI text often sounds like Corporate/PR nonsense to me. I was already convinced that people speaking like that were robots 30 years ago.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      True, but at least 30 years ago once you filtered through you could get what you needed. Today there are scams that look just like real companies trying to get you to buy from them instead. Who knows what happens if you put your money down. (Scams were of course always a problem, but there is much less cost to create a scam)
thadt 1y ago
Yesterday my wife burst into my office: "You used AI to generate that (podcast) episode summary, we don't sound like that!" In point of fact, I had not. After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".
- bob1029 1y ago
  I think one potential downside of using LLMs or exposing yourself to their generated content is that you may subconsciously adopt their quirks over time. Even if you aren't actively using AI for a particular task, prior exposure to their outputs could be biasing your thoughts. This has additional layers to it as well. For example, I actively avoid using em dash or anything that resembles it right now. If I had no exposure to the drama around AI, I wouldn't even be thinking about this. I am constraining my writing simply to avoid the implication.
  - code51 1y ago
    Exactly and this is hell for programming. You don't know whose style the LLM would pick for that particular prompt and project. You might end up with Carmack or maybe that buggy, test-failing piece of junk project on Github.
    - Taek 1y ago
      You can tell it who's style to copy, it's actually decent at following instructions like that.
      - alchemism 1y ago
        My first experiments with LLM chat was to ask to produce text mimicking the style of a distinct, well-known author. It was also quite good at producing hybrid fusions of unique fictional styles, A + B = AB.
      - noduerme 1y ago
        It's not bad at following my own style. I have longstanding quirks like naming any string that will end up in a DB query with a "q_" in front of the variable name, and shockingly Claude picks up on those and mimicks them. Wouldn't trust it to write anything without thorough review, but it's great at syntax.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Using the word is implies you have definite, conclusive proof, but the only one is a number of phrases that you believe are tells for AI generated stuff, but is it really or are you only now paying extra attention to it? It's better to stay neutral and say you suspect it may be AI generated. And for everyone else, responsible disclosure of using AI tools to write stuff would be appreciated. (this comment did not involve AI. I don't know how to write an emdash)
- ndiddy 1y ago
  > Using the word is implies you have definite, conclusive proof, but the only one is a number of phrases that you believe are tells for AI generated stuff, but is it really or are you only now paying extra attention to it? It's better to stay neutral and say you suspect it may be AI generated. Literally the first two sentences on the linked article: > Disclosure: Certain sections of this content were grammatically refined/updated using AI assistance, as English is not my first language. Quite ironic, I know, given the subject being discussed. Personally, I've read enough AI generated SEO spam that anything with the AI voice comes off as being inauthentic and spammy. I would much rather read something with the mistakes a non-native English speaker would make than something AI written/edited.
- __zack 1y ago
  It looks like the author did in fact update their article to disclose AI use: > Certain sections of this content were grammatically refined/updated using AI assistance > I don't know how to write an emdash Same here, and at this point I don’t think I will ever learn
cheesecompiler 1y ago
My least favourite part of this timeline: anyone who writes well gets classified as AI. Some of us press Option+- to insert an em dash and have been for years.
- progbits 1y ago
  GP did not use emdash as evidence of AI but rather the verbose style with little signal/noise ratio and the typical phrases most LLMs like to use.
- watwut 1y ago
  AI does not write well. People who write as AI are not the people writing well.
- riskable 1y ago
  I've been using the compose key for over a decade but only recently discovered you can type compose <dash><dash><dash> to produce an em dash. Before then, I always just typed a double-dash (--) to simulate it.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
Pretty sad that they didn't even try our antislop sampler. Slop in LLM outputs is a choice: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

nixpulvis 1y ago

I'm so sick of people claiming things sound like AI, when it's so easily not true. Between this and the flip side of AI-slop it's getting really frustrating out here online.

chemotaxis 1y ago
I think people sometimes jump the gun over small things (emdashes, etc). That said, in this instance, your anger is very likely misdirected. The article is almost certainly substantially AI-generated.
- nixpulvis 1y ago
  I mean, I guess I just don't care as much, as long as the author proof read it and it says what they want it to say. Just like I don't care if an AI submits a vulnerability report that is actually real.
progbits 1y ago
From the article itself (presumably added later): Disclosure: Certain sections of this content were grammatically refined/updated using AI assistance
bluGill 1y ago
Problem is AI sounds like normal people. There are a few clues, but good writers have always sounded like AI - except good writers are not making things up.
- dec0dedab0de 1y ago
  AI text often sounds like Corporate/PR nonsense to me. I was already convinced that people speaking like that were robots 30 years ago.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    True, but at least 30 years ago once you filtered through you could get what you needed. Today there are scams that look just like real companies trying to get you to buy from them instead. Who knows what happens if you put your money down. (Scams were of course always a problem, but there is much less cost to create a scam)

thadt 1y ago

Yesterday my wife burst into my office: "You used AI to generate that (podcast) episode summary, we don't sound like that!" In point of fact, I had not. After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".

bob1029 1y ago
I think one potential downside of using LLMs or exposing yourself to their generated content is that you may subconsciously adopt their quirks over time. Even if you aren't actively using AI for a particular task, prior exposure to their outputs could be biasing your thoughts. This has additional layers to it as well. For example, I actively avoid using em dash or anything that resembles it right now. If I had no exposure to the drama around AI, I wouldn't even be thinking about this. I am constraining my writing simply to avoid the implication.
- code51 1y ago
  Exactly and this is hell for programming. You don't know whose style the LLM would pick for that particular prompt and project. You might end up with Carmack or maybe that buggy, test-failing piece of junk project on Github.
  - Taek 1y ago
    You can tell it who's style to copy, it's actually decent at following instructions like that.
    - alchemism 1y ago
      My first experiments with LLM chat was to ask to produce text mimicking the style of a distinct, well-known author. It was also quite good at producing hybrid fusions of unique fictional styles, A + B = AB.
    - noduerme 1y ago
      It's not bad at following my own style. I have longstanding quirks like naming any string that will end up in a DB query with a "q_" in front of the variable name, and shockingly Claude picks up on those and mimicks them. Wouldn't trust it to write anything without thorough review, but it's great at syntax.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

Using the word is implies you have definite, conclusive proof, but the only one is a number of phrases that you believe are tells for AI generated stuff, but is it really or are you only now paying extra attention to it? It's better to stay neutral and say you suspect it may be AI generated. And for everyone else, responsible disclosure of using AI tools to write stuff would be appreciated. (this comment did not involve AI. I don't know how to write an emdash)

ndiddy 1y ago
> Using the word is implies you have definite, conclusive proof, but the only one is a number of phrases that you believe are tells for AI generated stuff, but is it really or are you only now paying extra attention to it? It's better to stay neutral and say you suspect it may be AI generated. Literally the first two sentences on the linked article: > Disclosure: Certain sections of this content were grammatically refined/updated using AI assistance, as English is not my first language. Quite ironic, I know, given the subject being discussed. Personally, I've read enough AI generated SEO spam that anything with the AI voice comes off as being inauthentic and spammy. I would much rather read something with the mistakes a non-native English speaker would make than something AI written/edited.
__zack 1y ago
It looks like the author did in fact update their article to disclose AI use: > Certain sections of this content were grammatically refined/updated using AI assistance > I don't know how to write an emdash Same here, and at this point I don’t think I will ever learn

cheesecompiler 1y ago

My least favourite part of this timeline: anyone who writes well gets classified as AI. Some of us press Option+- to insert an em dash and have been for years.

progbits 1y ago
GP did not use emdash as evidence of AI but rather the verbose style with little signal/noise ratio and the typical phrases most LLMs like to use.
watwut 1y ago
AI does not write well. People who write as AI are not the people writing well.
riskable 1y ago
I've been using the compose key for over a decade but only recently discovered you can type compose <dash><dash><dash> to produce an em dash. Before then, I always just typed a double-dash (--) to simulate it.

Der_Einzige 1y ago

Pretty sad that they didn't even try our antislop sampler. Slop in LLM outputs is a choice: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]