4 ms·
This sounds like ChatGPT.
by analognoise 2mo ago
This sounds like ChatGPT.
- michael-bey 2mo ago>this is not a eulogy, it's a reckoning 100%
- juleiie 2mo ago[flagged]
- nearlyepic 2mo agoYou’re right. The content sucks, because it was created with an LLM.
- juleiie 2mo ago[flagged]
- sailingparrot 2mo agoIt matters if an article was written by an expert or someone that only has surface knowledge about the topic. It matters if it’s written by someone talented with words or by someone that has to churn 10 articles a day for a content farm. So clearly not all sources are equal, and that applies to LLM too. If you spend 4h of your time writing an article on something you care about it’s likely to be interesting. If the extent of the effort you are willing to put in the topic is 10 seconds of your time to ask ChatGPT to « write an article about phrack », then just don’t bother. We can all ask our own GPTs to do it for us whenever we want. In theory someone could iterate for 4h with ChatGPT to get to the exact words they wanted to say without having written a line of it, but unfortunately for those folks, 99% of the content generated in that way will be nice sounding emptiness, and people don’t want to read 100 pieces of BS just to find 1 good one. There is too much content online and not enough time to read it all, we gotta filter somehow, and LLM sounding prose is one of the best filter available today.
- juleiie 2mo ago[flagged]
- sailingparrot 2mo ago> That isn't cheating. That's a tool doing what tools do. I should have known I was arguing with a bot all along
- juleiie 2mo ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 2mo agoFYI, you're arguing with a petty psychopath who will threaten your life when she inevidibly loses an argument because the facts and evidence are not on her side.
- nearlyepic 2mo ago> Argue with the content I am. It sounds like it was written by an LLM. That's synonymous with uninteresting and derivative. BTW, likening not wanting to read LLM output to racism is possibly one of the funniest things I've ever seen on this website. Thank you.
- juleiie 2mo agoIt’s suprisingly similar. In each case you shouldn’t care who written the text. Only judge it as is. Whether black hands typed the words or binary hands. It just doesn’t matter.
- nearlyepic 2mo agoIt does, actually - people are alive and computers aren’t. In case you forgot.
- juleiie 2mo agoDo yourself a favor and conduct a simple thought experiment that will destroy any possible argument. We are in year 2030, four years from now. LLM or similar architecture, produces output indistinguishable from a human. It can do this already if you are good at prompting to be honest. So you read an article and you have no way of knowing whether it is made by an LLM or whether it is made by a human. Do you cease to read anything released post 2026 out of sheer stubbornness/stupidity or do you keep reading articles? Because if you keep reading then you have no way of knowing, you already have read hundreds of AI generated articles without realizing. The survivorship bias has presented you with an article that is easy to see how it was made using AI. Now the plot twist is that it is already the 2030 for simple article generation and anyone can produce short text indistinguishable from 100% manual output. Hell it was possible a year ago no problem. So you focusing on whether the AI was used or maybe it was generated fully using some smaller local private model probably, is quite moot. It doesn't matter. It is still a bad article.
- nearlyepic 2mo ago
- lukewarm707 2mo agowhen i say 'written by an llm' i am skipping a step. it assumes the reader knows that llm style and diction is bad. but of course there are many reasons why it is so bad. for example, i would describe this article as grandiose, overdramatic and excessively ornate. ironically those styles show a lack of humanity. it has vanishingly little substance. take "a poetic snapshot of a subculture forming in the shadows". this is meaningless! it's generic, everything about the article is stating the mean belief. where is the controversy, where is the drama that would justify these massive sentences? you can also notice that everything about an llm text has this repulsive corporate optimism, a desperation to deliver a redeeming conclusion. so this article says, the hero meets the challenge in the journey, "We used opcode charts like musicians used sheet music. We owned the stack." oh no. we reached the bottom. but! watch out! because, we will be redeemed, "That spark is hard to find now, but it still lives in the rarest of places". how about this: no it fucking doesn't, the spark is dead, bled out and buried in a block of concrete. end of article. i studied humanities but i hope that readers of any subject would react the same way.
- juleiie 2mo agoSome people are more open to the message of a piece of writing and can easily handle mediocre form and still understand the argument. I hope one day all of the people will acquire this skill. For now we will have to do with pointless squabbles about too many em dashes and imperfect metaphors.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- DonHopkins 2mo agoHey juleiie, do you retract the death threat you made against me, or do you still stand by it?
- juleiie 2mo ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 2mo agoSo you're confirming that you publically threatened my life, as the record shows, and acknowledge that you don't retract it, and that you still intend to murder me? Understood. May I ask when you've scheduled my execution for? Perhaps you if you weren't so wrong all the time, you wouldn't have to threaten to kill me when you lose an argument on the facts and evidence, and had nothing better to counter with than a violent death threat. That totally undermines your argument and proves you're wrong, and a psychopath.
- balls187 2mo agoI think juleiie is AI generated.
- gre 2mo agois that why it's impossible for me to read? my brain has read so much llm output that i can only skim it now.