6 ms·
> An <overinflated point> is XYZ. This matters. You're probably totally innocent, but this comes across as being AI-written, especially in the context of an AI
by hansvm 2mo ago
> An <overinflated point> is XYZ. This matters.
You're probably totally innocent, but this comes across as being AI-written, especially in the context of an AI problem and when your response is pro-AI. For the next 3-12 months (maybe more, we'll see), I suspect you'll have a lot more success if you shy away from those speech patterns.
- nlawalker 2mo agoI see “this matters,” “XYZ matters,” “the last two are what matter” etc. everywhere now in all sorts of workplace documents.
- ktzar 2mo agoThe cringe part is when a real CEO says that in a speech.
- TranquilMarmot 2mo agoAnd then they pause for effect like they just dropped a huge truth bomb
- fuck_google 2mo ago[dead]
- vintermann 2mo agoWell, but what matters... matters. We can't let AI style disgust stop us from explicitly saying what we think matters and why!
- moring 2mo agoIt saddens me that we're banning speech patterns on HN, not discussing arguments. I have seen this in another thread yesterday(?), where somebody was accused of being an LLM based on speech patterns and downvoted, no further evidence needed. This site used to be above that level.
- hansvm 2mo agoNot in the slightest. I didn't touch the voting functionality and tried to be as nice as possible. I saw an opportunity to make somebody's life better for reasons it didn't seem they were aware of, since their speech seemed similar enough to certain AI idioms that I thought it would be demonized, and the fact that they wrote it anyway suggests they didn't know. As I'm looking at it right now, there might be some nuance I'm missing in how HN works, but the post doesn't seem to be greyed out or anything, suggesting that if it is being downvoted then the upvotes are counterbalancing sufficiently. > banning speech patterns AI is prevalent and often bad. Society is reacting quickly but maybe not quickly enough. Blanket speech "bans" are part of that. Is that bad? Eh. It's not ideal. It's to be expected though. I work with the society I'm given, not the one I should have.
- holoduke 2mo agoAbove is just AI slop. There is a good reason to be critical
- bryanrasmussen 2mo agoI mean on the one hand it is annoying because everybody has speech patterns, I like to say "I mean" and "on the one hand" a lot. On the other hand it seems a sort of self-protective recoil, nobody wants to spend a lot of time talking to an AI. Our jobs and society already make us spend way too much time and effort doing that! On the other hand: so, people throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is a problem, but not sure if it's as big a problem in the old days when you threw out the baby with the bathwater and it was only one tub of bathwater, because in the present time it's 2000 tubs of bathwater, and the baby is drowning anyway. I say this as a guy whose editor is complaining an article I'm collaborating on, about how the continual whining about AI tends to have a lot of false positives and is anyway annoying, is taking too long.
- hmry 2mo agoYour comment has three hands, that's the kind of collaborative communication style we should all aspire to. Personally, I suspect good writers will adapt in due time, not because they don't want to sound like AI, but because they don't want to sound cliche. Even the ones stubbornly holding on to their em-dashes. The ones hit hardest will be the mediocre writers, who have always relied on cliches. Their writing will become indistinguishable from reading chatbot output. At least that's my prediction.
- melvinroest 2mo agoHmm it's being done in a less cheesy way than AI does it. AI text feels more like "this matters, not less." There's always an "it's x not y" pattern somewhere. It could be written AI assisted but then look at his account. IMO every HN account that was created before ChatGPT came out has incentive to be written by a human since they have a paper trail before the whole LLM thing happened. This is at least written by a human, not AI, totally human, (digital) pinky promise ;-)
- qwertox 2mo ago> This matters. It's also triggering me. Wait, genuinely triggering me. https://trends.google.com/explore?q=genuinely&date=all&geo=Worldwide https://trends.google.com/explore?q=genuinely&date=all&geo=W...
- DiscourseFan 2mo agoDo you happen to be Filipino, by chance?
- HexPhantom 2mo agoFunny that we're reached the point where perfectly normal rhetorical habits can trigger the "AI wrote this" alarm... (or not funny, just ironic)
- shuwix 2mo agoNo. People don't speak like drunk linguinist on anonymous online forum. That's not "Perfectly normal rhetorical habits". It's either AI-assisted or someone desperatelly trying to impress "unknown people" with their non-existent intellect.
- TeMPOraL 2mo agoSure they do. I speak like this. Many others too. Evidence is in historical record. At this point it's super annoying for me to have my "AI wrote this" alarm trigger at my own language, as I'm writing...
- ncruces 2mo agoWasting your latin trying to impress others with nothingness causes the same revulsion, human or AI. Previously, most people would save their effort for things that actually mattered. Take away the effort and this is what you get.
- dgellow 2mo agoIt’s not about trying to impress others
- shuwix 1mo agoDumb people want to impress by using words others might not understand. Smart people want others to understand them. In early days of Internet, it was a domain of smart people. And native English speakers have no problem communicating with people from Ex-Comecon countries with vey little English knowledge.
- 1mo ago
- jimmytucson 2mo agoThere’s also a subtly reworded, “This isn’t human-level AI—it’s corporate-level AI.”
- isomorphic 2mo agoSigh. I want my damn em dash back. I had the Mac key combo memorized back when the phrase "AI winter" was coined. Now everyone thinks it's AI slop.
- ArcHound 2mo agoThank you for your sacrifice. Unfortunately for you, uncommon good writing practices have become a mark of AI generated text, which is very useful. Unfortunately you can't get your em dash back, ever. Sorry for the inconvenience.
- tpoacher 2mo agoLike hell we can't. Unsophisticated plebs (not you) viewing sophistication with suspicion is nothing new. And certainly no reason to demote one's standards. Long live the em-dash. Or en-dash surrounded by spaces if you prefer UK style (which I do).
- aitchnyu 1mo agoYou too can add footnotes to your presentations and documents stating all emdashes have been typed by a human.
- Animats 2mo agoSigh. I did write that personally, just as I have all my other HN posts. I'm moderately well known, and not anonymous. See www.animats.com. I wrote that because the last two times AIs built like organizations came up on HN, they were dismissed. Hence the somewhat out of character rhetoric. We have organizations of people for the usual reasons. Scale. Specialization. Robustness against failure and errors. All those wins apply to structured groups of LLMs. So this has a reasonable chance of being useful. It's expensive at the moment, but probably cheaper than the management team it may replace. For some reason, this idea seems to upset people. Unclear why. Comments?
- rob 2mo agoFWIW, I thought it was human written. Pangram also said that it's 100% human written. More likely, they're all wrong on this accusation. A bit concerning to see how many of them are throwing out a false positive like this. Makes me wonder how many of them are falling for actual AI traps in the real world. :)
- stavros 2mo agoI read the line and thought it was AI, and then saw the username and figured it wouldn't be. I find my writing being influenced by LLM patterns as well, because that's basically all the writing that exists these days. I don't like how it erodes my own voice because I keep reading the writings of this one single author all day, every day.
- SyneRyder 2mo agoWell, you mentioned Gas Town — that deserves an immediate reflexive downvote :P I actually upvoted your post. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it, but I was interested to see more discussion about it, and that felt worthy of an upvote. As for the reaction against the idea, I see it from two angles. Is the standard corporate hierarchy / architecture really the optimal organization principle for AI? Or is that just a skeuomorphism to make this project seem more serious than it really is? Maybe Yegge did us a favor by mapping to Mayors & Polecats, forcing people to question if it really is the correct organizational hierarchy? The other angle is heresy here - HN is full of employees now. There is little incentive for employees to be interested in what a C-suite does, and we see that with the comments about CEOs needing to be six foot and walk impressively. Employees have no interest in AI organization principles that optimize them away and highlights their obsolescence. I am surprised there hasn't been more discussion about how this specific project optimizes away the C-suite humans instead - I would have thought that could have had some appeal to employees, at least until those people realized it makes employees a swarm that works for AI leadership. As for AI organization, the organizational mapping needs to be productive, not affectation or cargo-culting. That's not peripheral — that's load-bearing. Especially in a corporation model, you can find the organization layers only create busywork with lots of unnecessary middle managers. You don't want your AI C-suite swarm burning tokens on endless meetings about what should be in the upcoming meeting... especially not at Fable API pricing.