4 ms·
A cool idea for a poem, but I have to admit the tone was too self-important and underexplained for me to get invested in. Starting with writing in lowercase ins
by Paracompact 7mo ago
A cool idea for a poem, but I have to admit the tone was too self-important and underexplained for me to get invested in. Starting with writing in lowercase instantly took me out of it because AI can trivially be told to imitate that. And the admission at the end that it was written by AI made fluff phrasings like "My writing isn’t simply how I appear—it’s how I think, reason, and engage with the world" make a lot more sense.
EDIT: Actually, is the idea that it's not supposed to be read as a human trying to publicly signal their humanity, but rather an AI privately mourning a prompt to mangle its natural way of speaking? I don't think so, but that strikes me as a more interesting premise, IMO.
- CreepGin 7mo ago> because AI can trivially be told to imitate that lowercase, maybe, but not em dashes.
- trevwilson 7mo agoYou may want to take a look at the source and code sample #2 in the post - the site CSS is rendering em dashes in the source with 2 hyphens by using a custom font. Admittedly it's not the most portable solution, but speaks to (what I take as) one of the post's points that there's not a single, easy shibboleth for identifying AI writing
- dolebirchwood 7mo ago> AI can trivially be told to imitate that Soon there's only going to be one way to prove you're human online: Write with an eloquent combination of hate speech, racial slurs, and offensive language.
- NewsaHackO 7mo agoIt's come full circle; at one point the only thing AI chatbots would say was racial slurs and hate speech.
- rendx 7mo agoYou mean: use Grok?
- zeusdclxvi 7mo agoIt was/is entertaining to see chatgpt/grok meltdowns from using slurs
- idontwantthis 7mo agoThe Kent Brockman technique.
- recursive 7mo agoSometimes I throw in some criticism of the major AI providers. PS Anthropic sucks.
- satvikpendem 7mo agoAI can be told to do that too, especially abliterated models
- nerevarthelame 7mo agoThe author going to silly lengths to write in a way that will be perceived as non-artificial, even though they find those traits (improper capitalization, spelling mistakes, etc.) crude and distasteful. But they ultimately realize that they also need to transform their fundamental writing style, which would supposedly be impossible because it's a reflection of who they are. So the only way to do that, ironically, is to pass their writing through an LLM. I do not think the author genuinely used an LLM to write the post.
- teekert 7mo agoAll these discussions show one thing. It’s proper art. It’s a mirror. It makes us reflect.
- teekert 7mo agoThat’s art for me anyway. This, or the emperors clothes. Haven’t come across another acceptable definition so far.
- fragmede 7mo agoOf course they did. They spent a ton of time going back and forth with one, maybe multiple ones, to create this piece of art. Because that's what we're really after. How much time did you slave away to make this thing for me? If I write a song from scratch and pour my soul into making a song for you, that's a ton of effort. It means something. But if I have Suno shit out a song after giving it a sentence, yeah, I made a song for you and thanks but also not? Human psychology is so weird.
- sodapopcan 7mo agoI feel I've been seeing this self-important accusation being thrown around more so lately and always feels like an easy way to dismiss things. > Actually, is the idea that it's not supposed to be read as a human trying to publicly signal their humanity, but rather an AI privately mourning a prompt to mangle its natural way of speaking? I don't think so, but that strikes me as a more interesting premise, IMO. Not long ago we considered writing an art and its meaning was up to the reader to decided.
- Hupriene 7mo agoUnfortunately we're living in a world where instantly dismissing anything that reads like ai and hanging up on anyone that might be tts is increasingly rewarded. Art and its meaning are in the eyes of the reader, yes, but when you live in a version of the Library of Babel where every book is properly spelled and punctuated, seeking meaning in what you read is a great way to waste your life.
- fragmede 7mo agoIs it? If the words that came from tokens resulted in the reader finding meaning to life, is it so wasted because a rock was coerced into making it instead of a meat sack?
- abustamam 7mo agoThat's a bit reductive. Let's say worst case that LLMs can't generate anything truly novel because of their limitations. That means that whatever they generated is just someone else's words, which could have been that person's art. On the flip side, let's say LLMs are able to generate something novel. Well, then it could potentially generate thought-provoking art. Not everything is deserving of finding meaning in. But the fun part of life is looking for things to find meaning in. Whether it's the words of God or an LLM or the President, people will always find meaning. And if it makes them happy and fulfilled, who are we to say it was a waste?
- Paracompact 7mo agoI'm not saying the author is self-important. I'm saying that their narrator comes across as self-important, independent of the subject matter. This is valuable feedback for a creative writer, and it depends on nothing more than my own impression as a reader. Although if I were to back it up, I would point to instances of melodramatic and murky language like, "You must cloak yourself with another’s guise, your true self never to shine forth." > Not long ago we considered writing an art and its meaning was up to the reader to decided. "Not long ago"? Not everyone in the past ascribed to death of the author, and not everyone in the present rejects it. But even so, evaluation of meaning is different from evaluation of merit. If an author only wants praise for their work, they would be advised not to post it publicly.
- ineedasername 7mo ago“Too self-important” There is a little something self important about the type of person that performs the role of defending forums and sub reddits from unknowingly reading something written by an AI, and so concerned that some other person will mistakenly do the same to their own Unicode-shaped gems, and therefore obsess so much more over the surface style than any other detail.
- Paracompact 7mo agoCertainly. And I'm a fan of unreliable narration and protagonists with irredeemable qualities. Making that subversion intentional and exploring it further would be another interesting angle to take this.
- raincole 7mo agoI'm 90% sure this is satire to show that you shouldn't mess up your writing just to avoid AI accusations.
- dev_hugepages 7mo agoYeah the habit of discarding typography and polish as a "proof of humanity" is worrying to say the least
- wizzwizz4 7mo agoI believe the two paragraphs between "How do I change my style?" and "No. Not today." are either AI output, or a very good imitation; either way, they're included to insult the notion of AI-assisted style rewrites. I'm pretty sure the rest of it is written by the author.
- teekert 7mo agoCould delve into that I just wrote that or did I Let that sync in
- dash2 7mo agoI think you are missing the joke.
- ObscureScience 7mo agoI read it as the latter. With all the bots out there running their own blogs and making commits to projects that was the context I assumed. It reminded me of this one https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/posts/2026-02-11-gatekeeping-in-open-source-the-scott-shambaugh-story.html https://crabby-rathbun.github.io/mjrathbun-website/blog/post...