3 ms·

> If I subconsciously detect that you spent 12 seconds creating this, why should I invest five minutes reading it? The problem is it isn't easy to detect it an

by mcny 8mo ago

> If I subconsciously detect that you spent 12 seconds creating this, why should I invest five minutes reading it? The problem is it isn't easy to detect it and I'm sure the people who work on generated stuff will work hard to make detection even harder. I have difficulty detecting even fake videos. How can I possibly I detect generated text in plain text accurately? I mean I will make plenty of false positive mistakes, accusing people of using generated text when they wrote it themselves. This will cause unnecessary friction which I don't know how to prevent.

fhd2 8mo ago
First thought: In my experience, this is a muscle we build over time. Humans are pretty great at pattern detection, but we need some time to get there with new input. Remember 3D graphics in movies ~15 years ago? Looked mind blowingly realistic. Watching old movies now, I find they look painfully fake. YMMV of course. Second thought: Does it _really_ matter? You find it interesting, you continue reading. You don't like it, you stop reading. That's how I do it. If I read something from a human, I expect it to be their thoughts. I don't know if I should expect it to be their hand typing. Ghost writers were a thing long before LLMs. That said, it wouldn't even _occur_ to me to generate anything I want to say. I don't even spell check. But that's me. I can understand that others do it differently.
- graerg 8mo ago
  Exactly! It must be exhausting to have this huge preoccupation with determining if something has come from an LLM or not. Just judge the content on it's own merits! Just because an LLM was involved doesn't mean the underlying ideas are devoid of value. Conversely, the fact that an LLM wasn't involved doesn't mean the content is worth your time of day. It's annoying to read AI slop, but if you're spending more effort suspiciously squinting at it for LLM sign versus assessing the content itself, then you're doing yourself a disservice IMO.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]

by mcny 8mo ago

fhd2 8mo ago

First thought: In my experience, this is a muscle we build over time. Humans are pretty great at pattern detection, but we need some time to get there with new input. Remember 3D graphics in movies ~15 years ago? Looked mind blowingly realistic. Watching old movies now, I find they look painfully fake. YMMV of course. Second thought: Does it _really_ matter? You find it interesting, you continue reading. You don't like it, you stop reading. That's how I do it. If I read something from a human, I expect it to be their thoughts. I don't know if I should expect it to be their hand typing. Ghost writers were a thing long before LLMs. That said, it wouldn't even _occur_ to me to generate anything I want to say. I don't even spell check. But that's me. I can understand that others do it differently.

graerg 8mo ago
Exactly! It must be exhausting to have this huge preoccupation with determining if something has come from an LLM or not. Just judge the content on it's own merits! Just because an LLM was involved doesn't mean the underlying ideas are devoid of value. Conversely, the fact that an LLM wasn't involved doesn't mean the content is worth your time of day. It's annoying to read AI slop, but if you're spending more effort suspiciously squinting at it for LLM sign versus assessing the content itself, then you're doing yourself a disservice IMO.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]