4 ms·
> A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect. Innocen
by lelanthran 4mo ago
> A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect.
Innocent until proven guilty is for a court.
Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness. Since so few humans ever wrote like the way LLMs default to, it's not unreasonable to refuse serious engagement with a party exhibiting this.
Aside: Every time someone claims they have always written like this, I ask for a link to their writing dated pre-2022, and send both to all free LLM chatbots with the question "did the same writer write both these pieces".
I have not yet gotten a "likely", or even a "remotely likely". It's all been "extremely unlikely".
- carlosjobim 4mo ago> Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness. And all of those are a fools errand, except meeting people face to face. Meeting somebody IRL it takes just a few minutes to know if they are trustworthy or not. If the business is severely serious, then you have to do like Genghis Khan and get fully drunk together. Anybody who refuses can never be fully trusted.
- lelanthran 4mo ago> And all of those are a fools errand, except meeting people face to face. I agree, and that works for IRL only! But what I am seeing online is a very large push for people to stop calling out obvious LLM prose. One can only guess at the motivations from people who are throwing tantrums that their LLM prose should be allowed, because it's their idea being discussed. What I am not seeing is them acknowledging the extreme disrespected they are demonstrating for a community when they cannot even bother to type "their" idea. IOW, if someone doesn't have the time to write it, then we should be making fun of them, shaming them and generally mocking them for losing the use of their brain in a public setting.
- sscaryterry 4mo agoI'm really talking about social dynamics here, not what is legal or not. I'm suggesting that putting in these type of "checks" contribute not alleviate the problem.
- potsandpans 4mo ago[flagged]
- lelanthran 4mo agoYour post is unwarranted equivocation, a false dichotomy and disingenuous. Congratulations, you got a trifecta! You're talking about a case where a mob is witch-hunting a person! The actual case is a forum is rejecting a post. You, and your form of rhetoric, are deliberately conflating the rejection of LLM messages and persecution of a person. They are not at all the same thing, and I'd like to understand why you feel that LLM messages must be quietly allowed in specific forums. After all, there are plenty of forums in which someone may post their LLM output, why is it so important that LLM output has to be allowed in some other forum? All the objections I see boil down to one thing - "Those other forums allowing LLM output have very few human readers left. I want my LLM output to be viewed by humans, not by other LLMs".
- potsandpans 4mo agoOh so you can't prove that you didn't murder someone, though many people are saying it. Sorry, I don't debate things with criminals.
- lelanthran 4mo ago> Oh so you can't prove that you didn't murder someone, though many people are saying it. Your argument falls flat because no one, except you in your specific argument, and for the purposes of your argument, accused me of murder. This example proves the opposite of what you wanted to prove: until you made up an accusation, you engaged with me. Your heuristics were sufficient, in your mind, to engage. Your criteria is, presumably, "people I have baseless accusations against". Other people have different criteria, usualyl based on some evidence, not pure gut feel.
- potsandpans 4mo agoPlease stop posting ai slop in response to whatever it is you think I'm arguing about