5 ms·

How is that not a natural sentence? I think people are reading into stuff. That's just good writing. Could it be generated? Sure. But there aren't the obvious

How is that not a natural sentence? I think people are reading into stuff. That's just good writing. Could it be generated? Sure. But there aren't the obvious tells you act like there are.

GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago
"Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall." is a VERY ChatGPT way to write. It's not proof, but the parent is right that this smells a bit of AI writing.
- kstrauser 7mo ago
  It's also a VERY HUMAN way to write. I don't care so much about Digg, but the endless "haha, I caught you!" comments annoy me more than the rare actual AI-written content they label.
  - GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago
    Not to the same extent at all. If you use ChatGPT for a while, you'll see it writes like that very frequently. Humans do write like that sometimes, but not with anywhere the frequency that ChatGPT does it. That's weak evidence for it being ChatGPT.
    - kstrauser 7mo ago
      Suppose ChatGPT uses a semicolon more often than an individual person. On a pageful of comments from many random people, someone using a semicolon doesn't mean they're a bot even if 100% of their comments on that page includes one.
      - GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago
        Would now be a good time to point out that I said that "It's not proof" and "weak evidence"? Because that is what I said.
        NetMageSCW 7mo ago
        Your next sentence then immediately took it as proof and evidence, so no.
        GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago
        Wasn't asking you, and that isn't what my next sentence said at all. Your reading comprehension could use some work.
      - PaulHoule 7mo ago
        It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you.
        iamdamian 7mo ago
        > It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you. I have to strongly disagree with you on this. It behooves us (as a species) not to degrade our own manner of speaking and writing simply because of a (possibly temporary) technical anomaly. In my view, it would be really, really sad to lose expressive punctuation or ways of constructing sentences simply because they're overused by AI. I, for one, won't be a part of that, and I hope you won't, either.
        oscaracso 7mo ago
        Your prose is poor so it is no wonder. Half the words you use are superfluous, some are nonsensical, and you beg the question.
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
        iamdamian 7mo ago
        Please consider reading the Hacker News community guidelines before you post again: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        cindyllm 7mo ago
        [dead]
        kstrauser 7mo ago
        Screw them. I was writing like that before AI came along, and I won’t change just because it offends their delicate sensibilities.
        NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
      So based on your one example, you immediately went ChatGPT! because…?
  - rchaud 7mo ago
    I think a human would have split the "it's not this, it's that" type of sentence into two separate sentences that could be more descriptive. This is a blog post, not a tweet, so there's no length constraint. If they wanted to keep it to a single sentence, they could have used a a word like "rather" to act as a separator between moat and wall.
grey-area 7mo ago
Here's the context: "We underestimated the gravitational pull of existing platforms. Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall." It's a mixed metaphor which doesn't make any sense. There are really very few ways in which this can be considered good writing - I guess the grammar is ok even if it is nonsense. So let's break it down - underestimated the gravitational effects - ok, this is nice, like where it's going talking about these big competitors sucking in users, but then we have the metaphor extended to breaking point: Network effects are a moat, but not just a moat, they're a wall (which is really not anything like a moat). So which of these 3 things are they, and why are we mixing the metaphors of gravity (pulling in customers), moats (competitive moat) and walls (walled gardens). It's just all a bit nonsensical and the kind of fuzzy prose that seems superficially impressive without actually saying anything meaningful in which LLMs excel. Go try generating an article from just the heads in this article, and see how similarly it reads.
- Melatonic 7mo ago
  Isnt a moat and a wall pretty similar in function? They both keep people in or out of an area. Also werent all "moats" commonly paired with a wall in real life? As in a moat around a castle wall?
  - grey-area 7mo ago
    In a castle for defence, yes similar in function but not form and often used together not one or the other. In business metaphors no they are used for different things and also when you create a metaphor you should stick with it, that’s what makes this jarring and weird.
- lbreakjai 7mo ago
  If you want your gradation to work, the items need to be similar and progressively stronger. That's why it doesn't work. A wall is not "stronger" than a moat. "Not a fence, a rampart" would work. Compare to the canonical example from Cyrano de Bergerac: ''Tis a rock! ... a peak! ... a cape! -- A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!'

How is that not a natural sentence? I think people are reading into stuff. That's just good writing. Could it be generated? Sure. But there aren't the obvious tells you act like there are.

GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago

"Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall." is a VERY ChatGPT way to write. It's not proof, but the parent is right that this smells a bit of AI writing.

kstrauser 7mo ago
It's also a VERY HUMAN way to write. I don't care so much about Digg, but the endless "haha, I caught you!" comments annoy me more than the rare actual AI-written content they label.
- GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago
  Not to the same extent at all. If you use ChatGPT for a while, you'll see it writes like that very frequently. Humans do write like that sometimes, but not with anywhere the frequency that ChatGPT does it. That's weak evidence for it being ChatGPT.
  - kstrauser 7mo ago
    Suppose ChatGPT uses a semicolon more often than an individual person. On a pageful of comments from many random people, someone using a semicolon doesn't mean they're a bot even if 100% of their comments on that page includes one.
    - GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago
      Would now be a good time to point out that I said that "It's not proof" and "weak evidence"? Because that is what I said.
      - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
        Your next sentence then immediately took it as proof and evidence, so no.
        GeorgeWBasic 7mo ago
        Wasn't asking you, and that isn't what my next sentence said at all. Your reading comprehension could use some work.
    - PaulHoule 7mo ago
      It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you.
      - iamdamian 7mo ago
        > It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you. I have to strongly disagree with you on this. It behooves us (as a species) not to degrade our own manner of speaking and writing simply because of a (possibly temporary) technical anomaly. In my view, it would be really, really sad to lose expressive punctuation or ways of constructing sentences simply because they're overused by AI. I, for one, won't be a part of that, and I hope you won't, either.
        oscaracso 7mo ago
        Your prose is poor so it is no wonder. Half the words you use are superfluous, some are nonsensical, and you beg the question.
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
        iamdamian 7mo ago
        Please consider reading the Hacker News community guidelines before you post again: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - cindyllm 7mo ago
        [dead]
      - kstrauser 7mo ago
        Screw them. I was writing like that before AI came along, and I won’t change just because it offends their delicate sensibilities.
      - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
  - NetMageSCW 7mo ago
    So based on your one example, you immediately went ChatGPT! because…?
- rchaud 7mo ago
  I think a human would have split the "it's not this, it's that" type of sentence into two separate sentences that could be more descriptive. This is a blog post, not a tweet, so there's no length constraint. If they wanted to keep it to a single sentence, they could have used a a word like "rather" to act as a separator between moat and wall.

grey-area 7mo ago

Here's the context: "We underestimated the gravitational pull of existing platforms. Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall." It's a mixed metaphor which doesn't make any sense. There are really very few ways in which this can be considered good writing - I guess the grammar is ok even if it is nonsense. So let's break it down - underestimated the gravitational effects - ok, this is nice, like where it's going talking about these big competitors sucking in users, but then we have the metaphor extended to breaking point: Network effects are a moat, but not just a moat, they're a wall (which is really not anything like a moat). So which of these 3 things are they, and why are we mixing the metaphors of gravity (pulling in customers), moats (competitive moat) and walls (walled gardens). It's just all a bit nonsensical and the kind of fuzzy prose that seems superficially impressive without actually saying anything meaningful in which LLMs excel. Go try generating an article from just the heads in this article, and see how similarly it reads.

Melatonic 7mo ago
Isnt a moat and a wall pretty similar in function? They both keep people in or out of an area. Also werent all "moats" commonly paired with a wall in real life? As in a moat around a castle wall?
- grey-area 7mo ago
  In a castle for defence, yes similar in function but not form and often used together not one or the other. In business metaphors no they are used for different things and also when you create a metaphor you should stick with it, that’s what makes this jarring and weird.
lbreakjai 7mo ago
If you want your gradation to work, the items need to be similar and progressively stronger. That's why it doesn't work. A wall is not "stronger" than a moat. "Not a fence, a rampart" would work. Compare to the canonical example from Cyrano de Bergerac: ''Tis a rock! ... a peak! ... a cape! -- A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!'