5 ms·

Uuuugh. The AI smell is strong on this comment. Please use AI for loads of things, but also pretty-please keep it out of inter-human discussions.

anamexis 4mo ago
This does not read as AI to me at all
- azan_ 4mo ago
  I'm 99% certain it's AI. Lots of short sentences. Very short paragraphs. It's not X, it's Y.
  - meatmanek 4mo ago
    "shape"
    - slopdetector 4mo ago
      Yeah, such words are a giveaway. Another: It is not “this simplified, kindergarten-level explanation”, it is “this explicit, thoughtful one” In this case I suspect the poster used GPT (looks like OpenAI) to generate the initial response and then edited it.
  - O1111OOO 4mo ago
    > I'm 99% certain it's AI. Lots of short sentences. Very short paragraphs. It's not X, it's Y. Your reply meets said criteria.
    - azan_ 4mo ago
      Yes. It's not just a reply - it's a joke.
      - O1111OOO 4mo ago
        I thought so but wasn't completely sure. Brilliant!
- lopsotronic 4mo ago
  Is there an actual quantitative check that says "AI or not AI"? I'm genuinely curious. So far as I can tell, AI prose checking - at least vs the frontier models - has been little better than vibe-based. Which, well, that's just another way of saying Red doesn't like Blue. And we got enough of that.
  - phainopepla2 4mo ago
    > Is there an actual quantitative check that says "AI or not AI"? I'm genuinely curious. There are plenty of them that will give you a number, Pangram is a commonly-used one. Of course, whether they actually work well is a different matter. In my experience they have a huge false positive rates. I haven't tested the inverse.
- klibertp 4mo ago
  It does. It's still a good text. It's also definitely a result of human-AI collaboration (to what extent - hard to say; could be AI edits in human-written text, could be a longer prompt and AI expanding it, something like that). The it's-not-X-it's-Y formula is the most visible tell. It's overused, being used, I think, 3 times, with 2 being slightly less obvious. This-was-X-and-now-it's-Y is also overrepresented. It's still not a bad comment. We can discuss it just fine. What we can't do now is assume this is entirely an EastLondonCoder's text, so we can't use it to form an opinion of that person (whether good or bad) based on its content (since we don't know how much of it comes from that person, and how much from the machine). Some will also form an opinion (good or bad) about the poster simply because they used AI. That's an Internet discourse of 2026, in my experience. I wonder what's next.
- ClearDay 4mo ago
  Single sentence paragraphs for rhetorical emphasis. I count six of those. Abrupt or elliptical sentences, often with a melodramatic tone. Example: "AI changes that." "It obviously can. So can a prison." Inconsistencies one wouldn't expect a human to make: "fraud detection" is ok in paragraph 5; worrisome in paragraph 9. I'm not vehemently against using AI as a drafting tool, but if I were to do that, I would be inclined to signal that somehow to avoid the appearance of dissimulation; just as I would if I were paraphrasing another author. If the points are good, then good. If you didn't notice the AI tells, does it really matter? It's still intelligible discourse.

anamexis 4mo ago

This does not read as AI to me at all

azan_ 4mo ago
I'm 99% certain it's AI. Lots of short sentences. Very short paragraphs. It's not X, it's Y.
- meatmanek 4mo ago
  "shape"
  - slopdetector 4mo ago
    Yeah, such words are a giveaway. Another: It is not “this simplified, kindergarten-level explanation”, it is “this explicit, thoughtful one” In this case I suspect the poster used GPT (looks like OpenAI) to generate the initial response and then edited it.
- O1111OOO 4mo ago
  > I'm 99% certain it's AI. Lots of short sentences. Very short paragraphs. It's not X, it's Y. Your reply meets said criteria.
  - azan_ 4mo ago
    Yes. It's not just a reply - it's a joke.
    - O1111OOO 4mo ago
      I thought so but wasn't completely sure. Brilliant!
lopsotronic 4mo ago
Is there an actual quantitative check that says "AI or not AI"? I'm genuinely curious. So far as I can tell, AI prose checking - at least vs the frontier models - has been little better than vibe-based. Which, well, that's just another way of saying Red doesn't like Blue. And we got enough of that.
- phainopepla2 4mo ago
  > Is there an actual quantitative check that says "AI or not AI"? I'm genuinely curious. There are plenty of them that will give you a number, Pangram is a commonly-used one. Of course, whether they actually work well is a different matter. In my experience they have a huge false positive rates. I haven't tested the inverse.
klibertp 4mo ago
It does. It's still a good text. It's also definitely a result of human-AI collaboration (to what extent - hard to say; could be AI edits in human-written text, could be a longer prompt and AI expanding it, something like that). The it's-not-X-it's-Y formula is the most visible tell. It's overused, being used, I think, 3 times, with 2 being slightly less obvious. This-was-X-and-now-it's-Y is also overrepresented. It's still not a bad comment. We can discuss it just fine. What we can't do now is assume this is entirely an EastLondonCoder's text, so we can't use it to form an opinion of that person (whether good or bad) based on its content (since we don't know how much of it comes from that person, and how much from the machine). Some will also form an opinion (good or bad) about the poster simply because they used AI. That's an Internet discourse of 2026, in my experience. I wonder what's next.
ClearDay 4mo ago
Single sentence paragraphs for rhetorical emphasis. I count six of those. Abrupt or elliptical sentences, often with a melodramatic tone. Example: "AI changes that." "It obviously can. So can a prison." Inconsistencies one wouldn't expect a human to make: "fraud detection" is ok in paragraph 5; worrisome in paragraph 9. I'm not vehemently against using AI as a drafting tool, but if I were to do that, I would be inclined to signal that somehow to avoid the appearance of dissimulation; just as I would if I were paraphrasing another author. If the points are good, then good. If you didn't notice the AI tells, does it really matter? It's still intelligible discourse.