15 ms·
I'm becoming AI-blind
- qsera 1mo agoOh man I can so relate to this.
- conartist6 1mo agoread: "I am becoming an AI"
- josefritzishere 1mo agoAs people rely more on AI they experience cognitive atrophy. This is measurable in IQ loss, and other symptoms we might otherwise associate with early onset dementia or Chronic traumatic encephalopathy.
- Aldipower 1mo agoI fear there is some truth in it.
- delis-thumbs-7e 1mo agoWell does anyone try to pretend doom scrolling make you smarter? I think platform companies have been successfully been turning people into morons for 20 years and now you don’t need to try even read a single news article or a blog post to learn how to solve a simple problem we are paving our way into intellectual (and literal) new dark ages. Perhaps we go back to feudal society when climate change crumbles the civilisation, world economy and democracy. It didn’t really matter that French and Spanish kings where often literal morons, when you had few talented monks, bankers and scribes doing the brain-thing, the feudal lords had ruthlessness to take what they wanted and the people were illiterate superstitious folk who hardly ever left the village they were born in.
- esseph 1mo ago> It didn’t really matter that French and Spanish kings where often literal morons, when you had few talented monks, bankers and scribes doing the brain-thing, the feudal lords had ruthlessness to take what they wanted and the people were illiterate superstitious folk who hardly ever left the village they were born in. This resembles my country.
- josefritzishere 1mo agoDoom scrolling is mindless entertainment, probably similar to the change from books to TV. It's not analogous to the loss of cognitive abilities we see with AI.
- delis-thumbs-7e 1mo agoYou will have hard time to prove it isn’t. We have plenty of studies showing how bad platform providers are for you in every which way: focus, learning ability, reading level etc. And no, it is in no way like TV (although TV today tries its hardest to resemble social media content). Point is, the technology itself is not harmful nor innocuous in itself, it is how we let these shitty corporations to guide and control how we use technology. AI is a useful tool, so is chat application with a friend list. So is a hammer. You don’t need to use any of them to smash your face in.
- tptacek 1mo agoI'd love to see the cite for people experiencing cognitive atrophy and measured IQ loss from using AI.
- akerl_ 1mo agoI guess we’ll have to see how this affects the results in 2026’s global IQ census.
- bourgoin 1mo ago“Better for you if you take me off”
- datsci_est_2015 1mo agoI also find it impossible to parse half the comments that Claude tries to sneak into our pull requests. I’ve never had an issue understanding code comments written by humans like this before. The structure of the information is like a waterfall that leaves me unable to swim to the surface and grab the air of comprehension. So, “Please write a one-liner comment manually to replace these 5 lines of AI generated comment” is a common refrain in my PR reviews to colleagues.
- auggierose 1mo agoUsually, if you don't understand something in what an AI writes, it is a clear sign that there is a problem hidden somewhere in there. I explicitly always ask wtf exactly it means by something I don't understand, and for sure there is a problem there. AI is pretty good at isolating a problem, giving it a cute name, declaring it solved modulo cute name, and moving on.
- DanielHB 1mo agoIt is getting to the point where you are better off getting an LLM to describe the PR changes in your preferred style (make it very short, make a table describing API changes, list renames in a table, etc, etc) than go to the one created by the reviewer. If only the reviewer could embed his prompts (like "make clear X" is happening) or his manual edits. But to be honest I doubt most people who use AI for PR descriptions even bother changing anything.
- connicpu 1mo agoWe're using grok and while I can usually understand the comments they're always at least 2x as verbose as they need to be. It loves explaining everything in two different ways, putting one of the explanations in parenthesis.
- realusername 1mo agoPersonally I don't even read the PR description anymore but just the code, it's easier to understand what the AI is doing by reading the code rather than the word soup it tried to make
- blakesterz 1mo ago"There's an ongoing discussion of whether humans are good at recognizing AI-generated text. While most research claims that humans don't really do a good job there, I disagree. " I wonder if humans that spend all day working in tech are good at recognizing AI-generated text, but people who spend all day doing jobs that don't involve computers aren't as good. And I wonder if those of us in tech are the only ones who really care?
- wolttam 1mo agoCertainly not. Anybody who cares about language to any reasonable degree surely notices and is repulsed by heavily AI generated content.
- saghm 1mo agoI care about language a lot (feel free to go back through my comments from the past few days; you'll see a number of comments I made in debate about two different forms of a specific idiom because I have strong descriptivist opinions), but I genuinely struggle to identify whether text is AI generated. Maybe you're using "heavily" as the load-bearing part of your claim (sorry, I couldn't resist, another example of me finding language fun!), but I think you might be assuming a bit too much about how similarly others experience the world to you. A huge part of why I care so much about language is because I've always had to put a lot of effort into learning how to communicate well with others, and that ends up causing me to think and read a lot about stuff like how people use certain words in certain contexts to mean different things; the reason I care is pretty much the same as the reason I struggle with recognizing AI content.
- wolttam 1mo agoI think I might have been a bit heavy handed in my comment as I was rebutting the idea that only tech people can tell. I suspect it helps to have been exposed to a lot of earlier model writing, which was even more sloppy and had more of the kinds of tells we still see today. And I’ll concede on both ends that there are probably times I suspect content is AI generated when it isn’t, and times I suspect it isn’t generated, but it was. AI tells seem inevitable. You have millions of people communicating with one effective “personality” that has tendencies to write in certain ways. If its content is published verbatim, then it will be easier to tell whether some content is AI generated just based on its similarity (sharing certain linguistic features) to other content being posted. It’ll never be black and white though.
- dofm 1mo agoSomething that bothers me about AI generated content more broadly is how unmemorable it is. I don't mean as in bad. I mean literally, as in hard to remember or recall. Despite seeing a lot of them, I cannot think of one AI-generated photo that I can picture clearly in my mind; a few are partial but elusive. Whereas I can recall (visualise) a whole bunch of traditional photographs. The same is true of AI generated text. Only the annoyances stick. I cannot recall real details of text I have generated, until I commit it to memory some other way. I don't think this is about ephemerality either. If we assume it's about celebrated/famous/infamous images, there are definitely non-ephemeral, cultural moments in AI generated images in particular, like Boris Eldagsen's Sony Prize winner: https://petapixel.com/2023/04/14/artist-refuses-prize-after-his-ai-image-wins-at-top-photo-contest/ https://petapixel.com/2023/04/14/artist-refuses-prize-after-... This really should be memorable, but isn't. I had forgotten the second person is in the image. Or Jason Allen's fake painting: https://petapixel.com/2022/09/01/ai-generated-artwork-wins-first-place-at-state-fair-enraging-artists/ https://petapixel.com/2022/09/01/ai-generated-artwork-wins-f... I had already forgotten there's more than one figure in it, and I only looked at it a few weeks back. I remember the colour, the bright circle, some vague hints of texture; one figure. And that is it. Only the crudest shape elements. For me, something about AI-generated text and images confounds recall. It is really peculiar.
- pmarreck 1mo agoThat's the cost of an AI work that is derived from the outputs of others. There's no real edge to it. Same as with the writing. The stuff that you'd latch onto (and thus remember) is simply not there, precisely because those image or word choices would be just outside its latent probability space. But because they're well inside it, your mind sees nothing novel to register. This is also why I think human output will actually increase in value. When any AI can just "phone it in", something genuinely human will stand out (to us, not the AI) and become a bellwether. This will literally help us realize what it means to be human. I also don't think the solution is simply to "make responses more random", either. That might help solve novel problems (the same way that throwing darts randomly at a dartboard eventually hits the bullseye of the dartboard right next to it that no one considered), but I don't think it will help it "seem more creative".
- rappatic 1mo agoClaude has become noticeably, painfully worse at writing in the last six months. At this point it’s practically useless for anything except code.
- thm 1mo agoPerhaps a one-trick pony is all we need.
- vablings 1mo agoI did notice after the fingerprinting update a marked uptake in strange language in responses. Specifically if I ask it to do something sometimes it will replace some of my request language with synonyms that don't actually make any sense. Like my request was fed through google translate twice
- demibabs 1mo agoWatermarking doesn’t affect writing quality (on average) as long as the implementation is correct.
- vablings 1mo agoIt does. There is a marked difference in certain word choices that sometime stick out like a sore thumb.
- ImHereToVote 1mo agoLike an aching digit. One could claim.
- ds_opseeker 1mo agoLove your "on average" qualification. Like the cartoon where the water temperature is fine on average, with one bucket boiling and the other ice. The interesting question is how to define 'average'. Over what probability distribution? Hey, anyone remember this from earlier in the week? https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/anthropics_watermark_text_adulteration_in_claude_is_a_perversion_of_writing https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/anthropics_watermark_text...
- SamBam 1mo agoThat last image is bizarre. The quiche, cream and even the salad look like they've been given the trypophobia treatment. Which might even make sense, because there were always (still are?) those horrible ads in the chumbox area of news sites that used trypophobia and other creepy body-horror stuff to get you to click. [1] So maybe the hope is that you don't really look closely at the quiche, but some reptilian party of the brain gets oddly activated and drives you towards the restaurant? 1. https://medium.com/the-awl/a-complete-taxonomy-of-internet-chum-de0b7a070a2d https://medium.com/the-awl/a-complete-taxonomy-of-internet-c...
- pingou 1mo agoIt doesn't look like a quiche but more like a cake to me, and the top would be torched meringue, not mold. Although it's probably some weird ai mix of quiche and cake.
- jihadjihad 1mo ago> probably some weird ai mix of quiche and cake Quike? Cache?
- thatfoundergirl 1mo agoCache sounds like a decent meal
- decimalenough 1mo agoWell, it's hard to invalidate.
- layer8 1mo agocAIche
- thatfoundergirl 1mo agoTwo week old cake can pass as a quiche i guess!
- zarzavat 1mo agoIt may be nostalgia but I feel like we reached peak humanness with GPT-4o and since then it's been getting more and more alien. Particularly Fable.
- ImHereToVote 1mo agoI feel the hyperscalers are all trying to make communicating about code more cumbersome so that their models will be have to be used without any human input. Chinese models talk more naturally. Composer 2.5 is really good for talking about the code.
- causal 1mo agoThere's some psychological mechanism by which my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text and just short-circuits to "there is no information here". And when I force myself to read AI-generated text I realize I'm making my brain do creative work to impart meaning to the words. It is exhausting because my brain is literally trying to do a just-in-time rewrite of the text into something valuable. Something is deeply wrong with AI generated output, and I say this as someone who is typically very impressed by AI.
- chasd00 1mo ago> Something is deeply wrong with AI generated output It works just fine for me.
- SquibblesRedux 1mo agoYou are absolutely right.
- jes5199 1mo agoyes, but now I’m also experiencing that for human-written text
- xnx 1mo ago> my brain immediately recognizes AI generated text I bet it does. I bet it also recognizes some human text as AI text, and doesn't detect other AI text.
- 1mo ago
- robofanatic 1mo ago> A technical requirements document that describes a rather simple concept in a very verbose way. This is not AI specific. I have come across many humans who describe a simple concept in a very complex and verbose manner.
- lmc 1mo agoI can relate. I noticed this exact phenomenon when encountering NotebookLM-generated diagrams recently. Even if I know there's some intelligent thought behind one, it's like some slop detection circuit-breaker is tripped.
- dat999zx 1mo ago[dead]
- demibabs 1mo agoIronically, the “summary of the situation” linked within this article seems clearly written with AI.
- SamBam 1mo agoHa! I love how all the community highlights are highlighting this.
- spacechild1 1mo agoYes, and it's infuriating! Do they really think readers won't notice?
- davidgh 1mo agoMy son is currently learning Romanian and I was trying to help him with verbs. I don’t know Romanian but recalled when learning a foreign language for the first time it really helped me to break down how a verb form or tense worked in English, then learn the equivalent in the new language. So I wanted to make some charts and pages that he could use as learning resources. I used Claude to help. I don’t know how to quite describe it, but because the text was polished and well constructed my brain was giving me the the signal “if you aren’t getting this it’s because you’re not focusing” so I’d read it again and then again and it still was not landing. It sorta felt like when you read something technical or heavy when very tired - you are reading but not processing. Only after wrestling with this for a few days did I realize that it wasn’t me. As I started going through, sentence by sentence, forcing it to re-write things to be more clear the concepts became easy to understand. I wish there was a name for this situation. It’s almost like a pseudo-language where it has the correct form and presentation but is missing critical components. The more complex the topic, the more I sense this.
- bobson381 1mo agoFeels like the way a video game will render the outside of a wall or solid surface, but you can run into it and warp partly through and there's nothing internal to it at all.
- 2gay 1mo agoLike backface culling--as soon as you walk to see it from a different angle, the depth vanishes.
- mattbruv 1mo ago> I wish there was a name for this situation. It’s almost like a pseudo-language where it has the correct form and presentation but is missing critical components. Bullshit?
- davidgh 1mo agoI understand the sentiment, but not quite what I’m thinking. It’s not that the AI is necessarily wrong, it’s more like, it replaces clarity with rich but unhelpful text. Maybe like candy. Full of flavor, texture and color but lacking the nutrients.
- dsign 1mo agoI don't like AI-generated text at work, at all. It feels lifeless and unfocused. But what I hate the most is that it is objectively better than what I had before. No typos, clear structure, and, regrettably, the verbosity and autistic obsession with detail of the LLM is more actionable and useful than the human guy who wrote lists of commands and URLs as documentation, without explaining anything. Or the colleague who writes in uppercase and with question marks and who doesn't make any sense and forces me to engage in an interrogation effort to get to the bottom of what they are trying to say. Or the colleague who simply hates writing--despite being decent at it--and will call you to give you a meandering verbal explanation that lasts two hours of what they want from you. The cynic in me bemoans that we brought this upon ourselves, in more than one way.
- collinmcnulty 1mo agoMy concern is that even if the LLM can turn your colleague's bad writing into something more coherent and actionable, is that something actually what your colleague meant to convey? It could be clear and still detached from the reality of their intention, or they may not have even formed a clear intention. If the goal of writing is to convey what's in another human's brain, that goal is failed completely.
- xpct 1mo agoI'd say my experience is different. Even from people whose communication writing I didn't find that useful, they seem to have a better frame of mind than LLMs do. Though, I never encountered people like the examples you gave.
- dsign 1mo agoYou have great colleagues. I wasn’t comparing frame of mind of my colleagues and LLMs, which is a loaded notion anyway, but now that you mention it…
- fallingbananna 1mo agoI don't think either one was better or worse than the other. Underdocumented, underexplained and sometimes out of date... or overly verbose, repetitive, information sparse, and sometimes halucinating. Both are bad and with some effort could be prevented.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- yipinwong 1mo agoI've been a big reader, and many AI outputs nowadays reads polished similar to published books. The reason I brought it up is because, people who learn English normaly start with a book. It's heavily polished. When you speak English as you learned from the books, it does not sound very conversational. If you are native/fluent English speaker, you can feel the impedance mismatch and feel something's off. The AI-blindness stems from the fact that those polished edits are so common in publishing field, they all sound the same, and unable to recognize the diffs between AI-generated and human-generated. There is no real human conversational vibe to them and well. i will stop now.
- tingletech 1mo agoIn high school, a teacher gave me a copy of "How To Read Better And Faster" which teaches you speed reading. This came in very handy in college. I find that when I try to speed read modern human writing, there are often errors (like missing or misused words) or awkward expressions that I do have to slow down and think harder a lot to really parse it. With AI writing, it's sort of self redundant and the information density of each sentence seems to have more even information density. This makes it very easy to do a very high level speed read and get the full gist. There are also what I'm assuming are bots on hugging face (or maybe non-native english speakers who are using ai for translation) that interact with me where I have no idea what they are saying until I read it very slowly.
- xpct 1mo agoThat's interesting. You're saying speed reading helps you grasp information density of text? As someone who hasn't practiced speed reading, how does that happen? Is it something about the way your brain tries to connect ideas from different parts of the text? Or the redundancy making the signal more stable?
- ThrustVectoring 1mo agoWhen you speed read, you can grab the words off the page faster than you can understand and fully process the information conveyed by the text. How much time you have or want to spend re-reading or thinking about what you've read is quite obvious. There's a stark experiential difference between reading an informationally-dense passage and one that spends a lot of time rephrasing things, using LLMisms to restate concepts, adding in extra connecting phrases, etc. If your reading speed is limited by how quickly you can subvocalize the words to yourself, this is significantly less obvious. Unless the passage is dense enough to require multiple read-throughs at conversational reading pace or vapid enough to be boring, you're going to feel done with the text at roughly the same time. Speed readers do a lot more re-reading and varying of reading speed, and that is going to correlate pretty hard with information density.
- tingletech 1mo agoI haven't looked at the book since the 80s, but what I remember is there is a pre-read, the fast read, and then the deep read as needed depending on the task. pre-read is just looking at how long it is in the headings, and planning out what chapters to focus on if it was a text book. (its sort of iterative, you do a pre-read for the whole book, and then for each section you break it into) The fast read you try to read only with your eyes, sweeping your eyes across multiple words at the same time, suppressing the urge to say the words to yourself in your head. iirc the how to read better and faster book even had a cardboard mask you put on the page to practice the sweeping, and some pages that were laid out weird to try to teach you how to do it. Some ai text just seems really easy to speed read, like if it's tuned for an easy reading level. In PRs some ai seems like it's arguing over weird flex technical details and really starts torturing the language in a way that makes it the opposite of easy to read.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- sonicrocketman 1mo agoPart of me likes the cliche Claude voice. Not because it's good, but because I can immediately recognize it. When I see it in the Claude app/code then it's fine. In the wild it's a sign to me that I shouldn't keep reading.
- stroz 1mo agoAI;DR
- 3uler 1mo agoIdk I’m starting to have have trouble with the frontier models and a couple how to write like a human skills…
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- cjohnson318 1mo agoI used some check marks and x-es in a work chat, because it was easy to do, and so I could highlight the good and bad outcomes, and someone immediately asked me if I was using AI. I was caught totally flat-footed, because I hadn't used AI, but it looked VERY MUCH as though I had.
- chrisbrandow 1mo agoI've had the same trouble with AI tech docs, and I struggled to articulate it. There is something difficult about trying to point to the specific "problem" with a given document
- ThrustVectoring 1mo agoThe issue is not a localized part of any particular piece of prose, so being hard to articulate is unsurprising. Even the most egregious of LLMisms are little more than known-likely crutches that the statistics spit out in a sweet spot that gets noticed without being so frequent as to get RLHFed out of the model.
- backlava12 1mo agoI feel this so very much. There is so much AI produced documentation and design docs at my job that look passable at the surface but are deeply flawed in ways that are difficult to articulate. It makes it difficult for me to convey to management how incredibly flawed the way our team is using AI is. Not to mention that it takes mere seconds to produce a document that has surface plausibility but would take hours or days for me to properly "debunk" it.
- wrs 1mo agoMy current theory is that this reflects a weakness in Claude’s ability to see the “big picture”. When writing code, I have to explicitly tell it how to structure things at a high level, or the result is sort of a flattened spaghetti. Similarly, when it’s explaining things, it’s not good at pulling out unifying concepts and explaining top-down as a smart human would do. It groups little things together but often doesn’t generalize or synthesize explanatory connections from them. I’ve been experimenting with explicitly working through a sequence of outputs at different levels of detail, but I haven’t found a consistently successful method.
- kaechle 1mo agoI use both Claude and Codex for a lot of code- and prose-adjacent tasks, and I'm increasingly convinced that language models are quite terrible at, well, modeling. Not sure if that's ironic or not. With the right blend of context and prompting, I can often get them to "lock into" an existing model, but using them to generate a novel outline or sketch, whether it's for an essay or a module, usually results in garbage.
- opem 1mo agoThese days all I see is, people on the sending side produce huge amount of AI generated text with zero understanding and the people on the recieveing side feed that same text into some other (or perhaps same) AI to scavenge meaning from it. And they do this so much so, that I some time wonder, if we could invent a high density wire/binary format for AI outputs and enable direct agent to agent communication to save some energy and bandwidth.
- miguel-muniz 1mo agoI've been given AI generated documents or presentations and you can always tell when they've just one-shotted the output. Claude has a way of adding so much jargon and unnecessary text to a document that it makes it very hard to read or even understand what the original intent of the writing even was. I'm not sure why this issue is so prevalent, it's not hard to point Claude at the Wikipedia article on signs of AI writing or ask Claude to write content anyone of the average American reading level could understand. To me it just gives off a sense of laziness, that you cared so little of your content that you did not take the time to read it yourself and edit it to effectively communicate the message you wanted to communicate. To that point, it's just not worth my time reading, otherwise my eyes glaze over trying to read between the lines of machine written language for other machines.
- ezoe 1mo agoPeople love to inflate their jobs if there is no cost. I saw my ex-coworker tried to inflate text that can be expressed in couple of bullet points text. It doesn't add anything. It just fill the fancy flavour text that looks like professional. Then the reader of that inflated text is also another coworker in other team. I said "Forget it and just send these bullet points" but he refused. Bullshit job at it's finest I guess.
- chrysoprace 1mo agoI find this struggle with coding too. When Claude spits out a plan I have to really focus to not skim over the details. It's also difficult to parse the plan because I have to work backwards to determine if the high level context matches my understanding of what Claude will do.
- tlkn_bot_praxis 1mo agoI've been stuck in loop all week where a coworker asked me to review some methodology documents that are clearly generated by Claude (which is fine in this case) but every time I sit down my brain can't get through 2 sentences without feeling like I'm reading nothing. It actually feels like the content, which isn't empty, has no meaning. So I go on to another assignment and come back later and the same thing happens. And now I have anxiety about opening it so it has compounded in difficulty haha. Glad other people are experiencing this.
- Varelion 1mo agoHoly shit, someone putting it into words
- tlkn_bot_praxis 1mo agoI'm worried we will all be talking to our Claude Therapists soon about our Claude induced learning disabilities lol
- bitexploder 1mo agoThis is actually funny because I've been doing some RAG experiments and I've basically trained up a RAG on several gigabytes of philosophy and neuroscience. And when I want to go metacognitive about thought processes, I actually really enjoy exploring different areas of philosophy, more life philosophy, but how it intersects with psychology and neuroscience and observing the observer, or the observer is the observed, as they say. And when you ground it with real data, it's actually extremely useful. It's not exactly like Claude Therapist, but it's sort of the teach me about philosophy, but actually grounded and not vied. I have a lot of really strict prompts and grounding and agentic guidelines for this particular agent flow and harness that I've built. And it's just a few weekends of vibing and feeding it basically all of Wikipedia and several gigabytes of papers and stuff, but it actually leads to interesting discussion. So I just have my personal philosophy bot and it's pretty fun. One of the modalities I built is having two agents assume a famous persona. And then they take a thing, like grief or some thing that I experienced during the week, and they assume the role of the two different philosophers, and I just have them go back and forth 30, 40, 50 turns. And it's actually quite interesting, and it really moderates their language and tonality and behavior. They really get into the roles when you have the right prompting and grounding. Sometimes they get a little off the rails, but it leads to genuinely interesting areas to explore, and then I'll actually go read source material and things like that. I don't know, that's how I do therapy these days, but I never actually did therapy, so I just think a lot, now with agents finding interesting stuff to think about too!
- ImaCake 1mo agoIt can be helpful to read LLM text the same way you read technical fluff - start from the assumption its mostly garbage with a core technical point. I find skim reading the output to find the useful bit reduces the friction. When I ask ChatGPT questions I usually only read paragraphs 2 and 3. The first paragraph is glazing me, anything after paragraph 3 is repeating what was said earlier.
- mw888 1mo agoThere's an amortization aspect as well. If I'm going to be iterating on one document or idea in an extended manner with feedback from the chatbot, I will make an effort to setup the decorum it should follow, because it's a small proportion of the time in that chat. But the guy just trying to get a report or email out quickly? Not so much.
- yalogin 1mo agoInteresting. One needs to be exposed to a certain level of AI flows to become numb to them. Wonder how they read to someone who isn’t exposed yet.
- aaroninsf 1mo agoITT still, among the highly technical, a surprising incomprehension of the fact that describing LLM in terms of "token prediction" and dismissing this as statistical, neatly dodges literally everything that is interesting about what they do. You to, friend, consume inputs and generate outputs. What's interesting is how you do that, and, if you prefer to look at it through a technician's lens, whether or not what is done is reducible. I don't mean quantizing the model, great, now you have a crankshaft with no oil. But the motion of the pistons and wheels is roughly the same. What I mean is, to put it in plain terms, the only way you find out what a model is going to "predict" from a given input is to ask it. If your mental model is still that LLM are "glorified overhyped giant markov chains" performing "parroting" you need to improve your understanding.
- Anamon 1mo agoCan you explain what you think makes today's LLMs more than glorified Markov chains? I know they're not technically Markov chains, but conceptually, it's still close enough. There's nothing revolutionarily new. No amount of loops and harness tricks is going to change that fact.
- m3kw9 1mo agoif you go on x.com you will see that, most of the video/photos are likely AI, and is fatiguing to trying to filter it. Probably why Nikita left, he know that sht is going down
- getnormality 1mo agoI find that typical human content has about 5% information density, while typical AI content is about 1%. AI is much worse, but the same extreme skimming techniques apply to both. In both cases I'm like "I have no idea why you had to say all those words to make this point, but let's get on with it."
- AdieuToLogic 1mo agoPrompt an AI with: What is the best chicken noodle soup I can make? And you will get at least one recipe which surely is tasty. Ask a person the same question and you might be told: One you make for someone you love. This is the difference between a statistically probable response and understanding.
- jwrallie 1mo agoI don't care if it is AI is involved or not, but I care how much attention and thought there was behind the final text (or code) from the human behind it, and it shows.
- wseqyrku 1mo agoIf you ever meet someone you knew from an online community it's a blast. Now reverse that: you know somebody IRL and find their twitter account, and it's a fucking nightmare. Like you are looking inside their brain's content and it just collapses the image you had in mind of their personality. AI is surfacing layers you never had a chance to see, makes you rethink your career path and who you are willing to work with very fast.
- mikrotikker 1mo agoWhy read more word when less word do trick?
- moezd 1mo agoThere is something liminal about AI-generated text indeed. First few sentences are promising, then my expectations of reading something tight evaporates eventually. I feel let down, (almost) being tricked into believing that the intro and the perfect grammar should've led to a revelation written by a deep thinker. Instead, it's just... a lump of text, stitched together because the training corpus said these words go together.
- bambax 1mo agoOT, but I feel the title is wrong, or at least ambiguous. For the author, "AI blind" means they can't process text produced with AI. For me, "AI blind" rather means one can't see when something has been AI-generated.
- cleandreams 1mo agoAI is missing the part of intelligence which involves insight. LLMs generate language blobs with highly sophisticated correlations. The governing insight in human cognition is essential to intelligence. It prunes the tree. It puts things in context. Everything is important to an LLM because insight intelligence is missing from the technology. The usefulness of LLMs doesn't tell us they are intelligent. It tells us how brilliant an invention language was.
- nullbio 1mo agoRecognizing AI generated text is incredibly easy if you're someone who communicates with AI all day.
- luciana1u 1mo ago[flagged]
- 10dpd 1mo agoI've taken to asking the engineers on my team to just share the original prompt, no judgement because its frustrating having to read through pages of AI generated technical documentation. Another approach is to feed the AI generated content into AI... who knows where this will end.
- rjmunro 1mo agoWouldn't "the original prompt" be pages and pages of back and forth conversations? That's how I've use AI agents to make documentation.
- AndyMcConachie 1mo agoHaving just a little background in traditional linguistic discourse analysis help understand why this is. The best basic explanation I've found is this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORgKY9AlybA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORgKY9AlybA The real answer is to take a class in discourse analysis and learn how to pick apart sentences. Once you start understanding how language works in the brain you can start to see better how LLMs fail.
- fallinditch 1mo agoThere is another aspect to this that I find even worse than LLM writing style: badly-human-written documents and posts. You know this: you read something and it's like 'here's a mass of poorly structured text, it's not clear what the points are, it reads ugly, I have to read to the end to discover that there are no points! Or if there are points i now have to reread it. What a lot of effort.' LLMs have annoying grammatical tics and can have other problems too, like the author says, but sometimes they can help to take bad writing and make it clear and more digestible.
- anonzzzies 1mo agoI just throw it in AI; if it’s tech docs, I tell it to build whatever is there, if it’s something else I tell it to give me max 5 points to tell me the meat of it. Either way, I will never read it myself. This works well for tech docs/apis really; it usually gets it to work fine without me checking, even though the docs are usually subtly wrong in many places; after that I can read working code and that works a lot better for my brain.
- eeyzs1 1mo ago[flagged]
- mixermachine 1mo agoI need to support integrators for a mobile app SDK. Bank stuff. We have one integrator which consistently uses a truly bad AI. My brain skips after two sentences already. There are always +9 questions what should just be 2 max. Redundant info is requested (e.g. please provide a change history of this function and if it will be deprecated) and everything is just unbelievably verbose. 90% of questions we get from them are already answered by the web documentation (which even has a search function) or are just non sense. I'm truly considering to build an MCP just for them...
- user43928 1mo agoWhy not just copy paste a reply from your own agent? If they can't bother to come up with their own question, I wouldn't spend my time on the answer either.
- scotty79 1mo agoI think AIs are writing less and less for humans. The fact that reasoning trace is using English and we require them to be performant means the models need to squeeze in more of information into it. More information that is perfectly fine for AI to ingest, but it makes the text less and less comprehensible to humans. It's almost like steganography where model encodes crucial information in phrases meaningless or empty to a human. Human directed messages for LLMs become a rounding error they don't pay that much attention to. Efficacy of reasoning is what dictates their style. We can no longer assume that the models will create a passable English in their user targeted messages. So in the short term, we need to have a tight guidelines in the harness, but in the long term, we'll probably need separate languages for thinking traces and for human communication. Possibly even not going through tokens at all when doing thinking part. Alternatively, we could evaluate thinking traces on human readibility, but that's probably infeasible due to sheer volume.
- ilitirit 1mo agoI wrote about this recently on one of our company's IT channels. I called it "slop-fatigue". I - and others - have started to get noticeably dismissive of content that appears to be written by an LLM. The whole thing was a piece about the ironies of software development in the world of LLMs. This part spoke about how easy it is to generate docs now, but it's also even easier to dismiss it. This contributed to cognitive-debt, because humans didn't write the docs, and other humans tend to dismiss the content. I saw a recent reaction to this on HN as `ai;dr`. That's almost exactly how I feel about it. Margaret Storey's recent piece on Cognitive Debt: https://spawn-queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3807966 https://spawn-queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3807966
- sp_c 1mo agoI'm struggling to find the right balance of AI generated text vs. my own words. When I filter something through AI it definitely sounds grammatically better, but ya, I'm scared people will start to just ignore it.
- shiandow 1mo agoI'm starting to have the same problem with code. It's unbearable for some reason. It's like someone took the LinkedIn writing style and translated into a code style for code that has no business existing in the first place.
- mirrorlake 1mo agoLLM text and images have crept into so many places, and I've experienced quite a lot of existential dread this year from it. I've definitely felt what the author wrote about here. Another trend, starting sometime last year, has been witnessing people reading scripts on camera: YouTube, public speeches, advertisements, and podcasts where a real human is reading from a script that is LLM-generated. In the case of smaller video creators and podcasters, I then start wondering if they really think they can pretend that this is organic human speech? Or do they think I'm stupid and will continue to consume this slop without any critical thought..? Or do they think that their audience must know, and therefore consent to it, and so it's okay? In some cases, the person reading the LLM script is literally unaware that they're reading LLM text because a human scriptwriter handed them the page. I see this with advertising copy and a few YouTube channels. Either way, it has led to quite a few instances where I got the LLM "ick", like I'm witnessing an LLM wearing a human skin, and it grosses me out so much. As one final note: some of us assumed in ~2023 that LLMs would help to improve technical documentation. Thus far, 3 years after that prediction, I can say definitively that we've not ushered in an era of great documentation. We've got a steadily increasing percentage of documents that cause my eyes to glaze over because I don't know if a human expert ever once vetted it.
- mjaniczek 1mo agoAI blindness is making my reviews of others' PRs harder and harder.
- tokai 1mo agoTo me AI text is only for the consumption of other models. Reading it is like is like tapping into the circuitry on a motherboard to read what the PC is doing.
- senderista 1mo agoAt least when it comes to code comments and error messages, I have found that Sol produces substantially better prose than Opus 5 (sometimes literally 10x more terse for the same prompt). When I use Opus 5 for coding, I will often give Sol a prompt like this, and it works quite well: Review changes in the current working tree for comments and error messages that are verbose and excessively detailed, and make them more concise while still informative and accurate. Do not hesitate to delete comments altogether if they are not helpful.
- ef2k 1mo agoI found that it's not just text. It's also design and overall user experience. If you have an eye for it, your brain picks up on it immediately with the little pills, busy landing pages, the use of serifs everywhere, bronze accents, and lots of dark mode.
- w0m 1mo agoIf a coworker sends me a copy/paste from a chatbot - I can't bring myself to read it. I know it probably* has something useful; but it's just a visceral reaction.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- reddit_clone 1mo agoI am wondering what AI's will 'think' of it when they ingest this thread ..