4 ms·
I've warmed to LLM-generated/assisted writing in general but this kind of stuff is just lazy and is basically "I got Claude to say something I agree with and th
by tolerance 5mo ago
I've warmed to LLM-generated/assisted writing in general but this kind of stuff is just lazy and is basically "I got Claude to say something I agree with and then made it pretty".
- berkes 5mo agoHow is this relevant to the article?
- ohyoutravel 5mo agoThe article was written with a premise into a prompt for Claude, which then wrote the whole thing.
- timcobb 5mo agoWhat do you think about the contents?
- Groxx 5mo agoUnless there's evidence that all of it was fact-checked, it's a waste of time to look harder. You can get any output you like, it doesn't mean it's correct.
- timcobb 5mo agoHow different is this from humans? In my experience people fill in the blanks quite the same, they just do it less convincingly and sometimes maliciously. Having the sort of prejudice you describe against AI content doesn't make sense if you consider humans make mistakes and lie all the time, coming from a position of less knowledge than LLMs. You need to approach both with similar caution.
- Groxx 5mo agoAt least part of it is that we do attribute malice or lack of care (or madness) to people who repeatedly do it, and treat their output differently in the future. For some reason, some people repeatedly defend machines that constantly do the same thing, and claim we should give it the benefit of the doubt.
- timcobb 5mo agoWhy give anyone benefit of doubt when you're just trying to extract true information. If a person BSs you, you don't believe them in the future either. Giving BS the benefit of doubt isn't serving anyone. Giving intent benefit of doubt makes sense, but intent isn't important when it comes to technical information and lying about it
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- Groxx 5mo agoYes, that is my point about "AI" generated text. It's deep into "doubt by default, require evidence before bothering" territory. Hence I think it's strange to defend spending time on it by default.
- cj 5mo ago> How different is this from humans? Humans exercise judgement. At least when humans lie they're usually doing it on purpose. When machines lie they don't know they're doing it.
- timcobb 5mo agoWhy does this make it better for you the consumer? You still need to detect the lie and respond to it appropriately. Machines lie more elegantly, I think is the scary part
- 5mo ago
- prepend 5mo agoIt’s poorly written and untrustworthy. I’d rather it not exist.
- junofan 5mo agoIt’s interesting this AI-generated article references “Reddit threads” being “full of support” two or three times, yet I can’t find Reddit threads in the references. I wonder if we are seeing what may be the result of a Reddit bot campaign to sway generative output.
- simmerup 5mo agoI think I could prompt Claude to make me an opposite article telling me Americans love flock cameras
- amiga386 5mo agoWhy does that even matter? It's inauthentic, don't waste your time.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- fzeroracer 5mo agoIf the contents can be generated, why does the contents matter? They can just distill the blog down to a prompt and skip forcing us to read bullshit.
- ohyoutravel 5mo agoI value my time. I will not be reading any statistically composed slop that a human couldn’t even be bothered to spend time writing.
- rdiddly 5mo agoDid not strike me as AI-written. But it's useless to try to distinguish. There is only good writing and shite writing. (With things like "accuracy" and "verifiability" and even "awareness of adjacent context" included in my definition of "good.") The article is reasonably good and your comment I'm afraid is fairly shite.
- arijun 5mo agoI disagree. There is more content out there than I can read in many lifetimes, so I have to be selective. LLM generated text (like any text) can be well put together on the surface level but require deeper consideration to see the flaws, and of course this takes more effort than the writing did. A human-written piece indicates someone believes in it enough to put in enough effort to write it up nicely, so it works as a heuristic of underlying quality.
- rdiddly 5mo agoAll true, but how do you distinguish human-written from AI-written or a hybrid? They all have an author's name attached. You would have to limit your reading to people you know personally. (Which isn't a terrible idea actually.) Otherwise it's a judgment call, which inevitably comes down to a question of writing quality. "This has to be AI because it's so terrible." But humans are perfectly capable of writing terribly (that is in fact where the LLM learned it) and LLMs can even write well occasionally, including with human intervention. So I decided that if I'm using quality as a proxy to guess at authorship, why not just forget authorship and make quality primary. Basically since authorship is unknowable I'm declaring it irrelevant. It's not ideal but these are the times we're living in.
- jweir 5mo agogenerate a story where there is not much of a story. What is unfortunate is this has gotten upvoted and is now part of the noise.
- danjc 5mo agoA browser plugin that scores webpage content based on how likely it is to have been AI-generated would be quite useful. Browser vendors can't build this.
- neversupervised 5mo agoCheck out Pangram
- sigmoid10 5mo agoThis is virtually impossible to build. Not just because all current "AI detector" systems are fake or outright scams with accuracy comparable to a coin-flip on frontier model output, but because even if someone did build a reliable detector and released it to the public, it could be used for adversarial training and it would become worthless pretty fast.
- linolevan 5mo agoPangram is legit. I don't work at pangram, we integrated it in our paper website and one of the cool emergent behaviors I've seen is that on AI papers with example rollouts, it will accurately mark the paper's main text as human generated and the rollouts as AI generated. My understanding is that they strongly believe in no false positives, so it's definitely possible to slip something by them but if it marks something as AI, it very likely is.
- jfengel 5mo agoWhat is a rollout in this context?
- dolebirchwood 5mo ago> My understanding is that they strongly believe in no false positives Who cares what they "believe" (or, more accurately, say they believe). What are the underlying processes that actually guarantee this, and what data supports it?
- woadwarrior01 5mo ago
- skiing_crawling 5mo agoAI didn't start this, journalist have been using wordplay to "technically tell the truth" forever.
- Forgeties79 5mo agoI’ve definitely learned lately to basically never trust an LLM sending back to me “other people have reported the same issue.” it means it in the most literal sense, as in it went online and found somebody who said something similar to what I am looking in to. It has no ability to determine validity, proportion, relevance, etc.