3 ms·

I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write. I use the "it's not X it's Y" framing a lot of the time because it's a quick way

by xmprt 3mo ago

I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write. I use the "it's not X it's Y" framing a lot of the time because it's a quick way to get my point across. It's probably the sign of a bad writer because I can't come up with a different/better way to say the same thing, but I'm not AI.

schrodinger 3mo ago
I could tell it was AI, but it was interesting nonetheless. FWIW, I don't think AI enablement is inherently bad; this can be a game changer for an individual with an interesting thought yet difficulty expressing themselves in written word. (Obviously, it's also created a real problem with the ability to create near infinite well-written content, especially in the case of propaganda.) I do agree with you that the quotes cited out are literary constructs used by humans, and there's a risk we get trigger-happy in calling out AI-slop. Still, those are just the most obvious tells — there were absolutely other, less notable mannerisms that confirmed it for me. If you interact enough with an LLM, you can become quite good at detecting their output through subtle subconscious cues that are hard to put to words. I do wonder where some of the tropes came from. Claude tends to say "____ is doing a lot of work in this sentence", yet I don't recognize that as a common construction for humans overall or even a specific community (e.g. journalists). Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with some vernaculars found in training data. Yet sometimes, it legitimately feels like they've actually developed a lingo of their own — an emergent property. I find it all truly fascinating (along with other feelings…), and I never expected computers to be able to "understand" language anywhere near the degree we see today. Will it soon plateau, requiring another breakthrough? Or is there plenty of juice left to squeeze?
- KajMagnus 3mo ago
  > was AI, but it was interesting nonetheless I suspect the prompt given to the AI was 3 sentences, maybe interesting sentences, and everything else was AI expanded, a waste of everyone's time? (Those who read everything)
  - schrodinger 3mo ago
    That would imply that all of the knowledge held with these models is an uninteresting waste of everyone's time. I don't believe that's true.
    - KajMagnus 3mo ago
      Yes I guess there exists such blog posts. And that it varies from person to person of course (what they already know or dont). This blog post in particular though, I got so bored so I couldn't finish reading it. I gave it another quick try now because of your comment :-)
joenot443 3mo ago
> I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write Certainly. If these were one-offs in an otherwise human written piece then we wouldn't even be discussing it. In this case, they're just the simplest examples in an objectively LLM produced piece. I'm happy to point to more if you're skeptical; I'd happily wager cash the prose here wasn't written by human fingers.
- xmprt 3mo ago
  I think AI was used to help write this but I doubt it was 100% AI generated. Kind of like how AI could be used to write code, but if a human's thoughts go into how the code is structured, and a human does a final pass to edit/polish the code, I'd still consider the code human written. AI slop in my mind is anything that's completely written by AI with the only human input being "hey it would be nice if this article existed in the world"... If the human doesn't verify or edit anything the AI wrote, then I might as well just prompt the AI myself if it's a topic I'm interested in.

by xmprt 3mo ago

schrodinger 3mo ago

I could tell it was AI, but it was interesting nonetheless. FWIW, I don't think AI enablement is inherently bad; this can be a game changer for an individual with an interesting thought yet difficulty expressing themselves in written word. (Obviously, it's also created a real problem with the ability to create near infinite well-written content, especially in the case of propaganda.) I do agree with you that the quotes cited out are literary constructs used by humans, and there's a risk we get trigger-happy in calling out AI-slop. Still, those are just the most obvious tells — there were absolutely other, less notable mannerisms that confirmed it for me. If you interact enough with an LLM, you can become quite good at detecting their output through subtle subconscious cues that are hard to put to words. I do wonder where some of the tropes came from. Claude tends to say "____ is doing a lot of work in this sentence", yet I don't recognize that as a common construction for humans overall or even a specific community (e.g. journalists). Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with some vernaculars found in training data. Yet sometimes, it legitimately feels like they've actually developed a lingo of their own — an emergent property. I find it all truly fascinating (along with other feelings…), and I never expected computers to be able to "understand" language anywhere near the degree we see today. Will it soon plateau, requiring another breakthrough? Or is there plenty of juice left to squeeze?

KajMagnus 3mo ago
> was AI, but it was interesting nonetheless I suspect the prompt given to the AI was 3 sentences, maybe interesting sentences, and everything else was AI expanded, a waste of everyone's time? (Those who read everything)
- schrodinger 3mo ago
  That would imply that all of the knowledge held with these models is an uninteresting waste of everyone's time. I don't believe that's true.
  - KajMagnus 3mo ago
    Yes I guess there exists such blog posts. And that it varies from person to person of course (what they already know or dont). This blog post in particular though, I got so bored so I couldn't finish reading it. I gave it another quick try now because of your comment :-)

joenot443 3mo ago

> I agree that these are signs of AI, but they're also the way that people write Certainly. If these were one-offs in an otherwise human written piece then we wouldn't even be discussing it. In this case, they're just the simplest examples in an objectively LLM produced piece. I'm happy to point to more if you're skeptical; I'd happily wager cash the prose here wasn't written by human fingers.

xmprt 3mo ago
I think AI was used to help write this but I doubt it was 100% AI generated. Kind of like how AI could be used to write code, but if a human's thoughts go into how the code is structured, and a human does a final pass to edit/polish the code, I'd still consider the code human written. AI slop in my mind is anything that's completely written by AI with the only human input being "hey it would be nice if this article existed in the world"... If the human doesn't verify or edit anything the AI wrote, then I might as well just prompt the AI myself if it's a topic I'm interested in.