3 ms·

Speleology aside, just a few days ago in one of HN discussions I was told LLM-produced content is already indistinguishable from human-made. But I'm sure I woul

Speleology aside, just a few days ago in one of HN discussions I was told LLM-produced content is already indistinguishable from human-made. But I'm sure I would have pretty good chances to correctly guess even the exact brand which helped to write this sloppy text. And it's the same with many stories I read.

springtimesun 2mo ago
Stake the claim then. I’ve also read a fair bit of LLM text and this didn’t trip anything for me. Edit: after reading the author bio and the other articles, I agree with this assessment. Though I will admit, this particular article didn’t jump out as AI to me.
- homeonthemtn 2mo ago
  It's Claude. I picked up on it too (I am also a heavy Claude user) The title alone gives it away. Sentences like this also trigger my daily annoyance: "Researchers found an elegant way to test it, and the timing was almost too convenient." Me: "Almost too convenient is expressing an opinion. Rewrite this to be straight forward, succinct information" Claude: "You're right, and I was wrong. That's the second time you've had to correct me this session. Let me update my memory to adjust for this" Eye twitch
  - everybodyknows 2mo ago
    And the nonsensical, chatty slang > Let me ... As if Claude actually needed the human user's permission or cooperation to do so.
RamblingCTO 2mo ago
I know what you mean. Flowery and fluffy. I don't see any clear giveaways, but it feels like it and is a bit annoying to read because the information in there isn't very dense.
- raptor111 2mo ago
  the "why it matters" subtitle near the end seems very much like claude to me
  - eth0up 2mo ago
    That falls into the general category of 'authority groping' (yes, I coin my own terms) where a prediction engine without real reasoning, must apply numerous tricks to convey confidence, authority and substance where there may be less or none. Similar to the constant negative-propositions or "not" statement, where usually one to three things that do not apply are articulated, which has the result of credibility accumulation, I suppose, by showing "hey, I am right about not just one thing, but four!" hence the saturated styles we tend to see.
- _kulang 2mo ago
  I saw a great video on YouTube by languagejones, and he asks: do we have to tell the difference between an LLM and an idiot? The writing is just bad. I think this is clear to everyone, so I guess we could stop at that
yaemiko 2mo ago
"summary, a, b, c, why it matters" + fillers like the summarization tools based on those models except it's the opposite, it was fluffed up into a long article

springtimesun 2mo ago

Stake the claim then. I’ve also read a fair bit of LLM text and this didn’t trip anything for me. Edit: after reading the author bio and the other articles, I agree with this assessment. Though I will admit, this particular article didn’t jump out as AI to me.

homeonthemtn 2mo ago
It's Claude. I picked up on it too (I am also a heavy Claude user) The title alone gives it away. Sentences like this also trigger my daily annoyance: "Researchers found an elegant way to test it, and the timing was almost too convenient." Me: "Almost too convenient is expressing an opinion. Rewrite this to be straight forward, succinct information" Claude: "You're right, and I was wrong. That's the second time you've had to correct me this session. Let me update my memory to adjust for this" Eye twitch
- everybodyknows 2mo ago
  And the nonsensical, chatty slang > Let me ... As if Claude actually needed the human user's permission or cooperation to do so.

RamblingCTO 2mo ago

I know what you mean. Flowery and fluffy. I don't see any clear giveaways, but it feels like it and is a bit annoying to read because the information in there isn't very dense.

raptor111 2mo ago
the "why it matters" subtitle near the end seems very much like claude to me
- eth0up 2mo ago
  That falls into the general category of 'authority groping' (yes, I coin my own terms) where a prediction engine without real reasoning, must apply numerous tricks to convey confidence, authority and substance where there may be less or none. Similar to the constant negative-propositions or "not" statement, where usually one to three things that do not apply are articulated, which has the result of credibility accumulation, I suppose, by showing "hey, I am right about not just one thing, but four!" hence the saturated styles we tend to see.
_kulang 2mo ago
I saw a great video on YouTube by languagejones, and he asks: do we have to tell the difference between an LLM and an idiot? The writing is just bad. I think this is clear to everyone, so I guess we could stop at that

yaemiko 2mo ago

"summary, a, b, c, why it matters" + fillers like the summarization tools based on those models except it's the opposite, it was fluffed up into a long article