4 ms·

I wasn't making a comment about toupees, I was referring to the toupee fallacy. Look, I don't know who you are, or what your background is, and without that, t

by 1dom 2mo ago

I wasn't making a comment about toupees, I was referring to the toupee fallacy. Look, I don't know who you are, or what your background is, and without that, there's nothing I can do to convince you that AI is being used in writing and you can't identify it. The fact is there's a well-known author saying from their experience that the writing produced by LLMs can be amazing, that's the article we're all here to discuss. I've then included a link to another article where a whole bunch of publishers couldn't tell if AI was being used. This means either you're confidently know you're a more discerning reader/writer than a well known author and a bunch of publishers. Or, you know you're not, and you're choosing to believe your feeling that you know better then them, which I'm not really interested in discussing. To be clear: I'm not saying AI doesn't produce slop, I'm saying it also produces stuff that the vast, vast majority, even of experts, cannot identify as AI produced. This means anyone who suggests they can easily identify it now, or "all AI stuff makes me vomit" is probably needlessly deluding themselves. I think this has only been the case for the last 6 - 12 months.

delis-thumbs-7e 2mo ago
Basically you are coming to conclusion that everyone must have been wearing toupees past year. Only thing I asked you was provide evidence, which should be pretty easy to come up with. If I asked you to produce an example of a 2D-platformer game AI has made from scratch, you had no trouble to prove me wrong. Yet you have to default on appeal to authority. Could it be those publishers are creating buzz to sell something? Besides, I’m sure there’s dozens of quotes saying LLM’s cannot produce shit with some really authoritative names behind them. That also doesn’t mean anything. I’m certain there’s plenty of books generated solely or in last part by LLM’s. They usually have some scantily clad woman or man in the cover. In genre fiction it is becoming a nuisance, but then again, many readers do not care. So I know that LLM’s cannot produce not slop, but not exactly good literature either. But the claim is there is yet again some secret super-AI somewhere that produces this amazing writing and has been doing so past 6-12 months. Well the shelves full of amazing new books, are we living new renaissance of literature? As a book nerd, am I desperately trying to find hours in the day to read all these new Ulysses’, Lord of The Rings, Search of Lost Time’s and whatnot? Is every blog post so good that it could be written by Nabokov? You probably guess the answer.
- 1dom 2mo ago
  I provided you evidence but you ignored it, so I'll restate it. In the article that we're all here to discuss, it talks about an unpublished novel that is unpublished specifically because expert publishers couldn't determine if it was AI. I'll quote from the source that the article references: > In an email obtained by the outlet, Hodgman said that the “incredible” manuscript “dazzled” publishers around the world, but they failed to authenticate the evolution of the writing. The email adds that while they vetted the submission and were reassured that AI tools weren’t used, they could no longer substantiate any claims. It's a dazzling manuscript according to publishers around the world. Seasoned publishers couldn't be certain if it was AI. This is literally an article about the exact thing you're arguing against - I can't be more specific with my evidence. Ultimately, I feel you're not trying to come to a correct conclusion together like a healthy debate should. You spent half a sentence dismissing what I was saying and then paragraphs talking about how certain you are about your own opinions on AI writing, whilst providing no real argument or evidence beyond rhetorical questions. That's not really what I'm here for, sorry.

by 1dom 2mo ago

delis-thumbs-7e 2mo ago

Basically you are coming to conclusion that everyone must have been wearing toupees past year. Only thing I asked you was provide evidence, which should be pretty easy to come up with. If I asked you to produce an example of a 2D-platformer game AI has made from scratch, you had no trouble to prove me wrong. Yet you have to default on appeal to authority. Could it be those publishers are creating buzz to sell something? Besides, I’m sure there’s dozens of quotes saying LLM’s cannot produce shit with some really authoritative names behind them. That also doesn’t mean anything. I’m certain there’s plenty of books generated solely or in last part by LLM’s. They usually have some scantily clad woman or man in the cover. In genre fiction it is becoming a nuisance, but then again, many readers do not care. So I know that LLM’s cannot produce not slop, but not exactly good literature either. But the claim is there is yet again some secret super-AI somewhere that produces this amazing writing and has been doing so past 6-12 months. Well the shelves full of amazing new books, are we living new renaissance of literature? As a book nerd, am I desperately trying to find hours in the day to read all these new Ulysses’, Lord of The Rings, Search of Lost Time’s and whatnot? Is every blog post so good that it could be written by Nabokov? You probably guess the answer.

1dom 2mo ago
I provided you evidence but you ignored it, so I'll restate it. In the article that we're all here to discuss, it talks about an unpublished novel that is unpublished specifically because expert publishers couldn't determine if it was AI. I'll quote from the source that the article references: > In an email obtained by the outlet, Hodgman said that the “incredible” manuscript “dazzled” publishers around the world, but they failed to authenticate the evolution of the writing. The email adds that while they vetted the submission and were reassured that AI tools weren’t used, they could no longer substantiate any claims. It's a dazzling manuscript according to publishers around the world. Seasoned publishers couldn't be certain if it was AI. This is literally an article about the exact thing you're arguing against - I can't be more specific with my evidence. Ultimately, I feel you're not trying to come to a correct conclusion together like a healthy debate should. You spent half a sentence dismissing what I was saying and then paragraphs talking about how certain you are about your own opinions on AI writing, whilst providing no real argument or evidence beyond rhetorical questions. That's not really what I'm here for, sorry.