4 ms·
I did and it's true, but I amended my statement at the top of this thread, which you've ignored. What I wrote is true (it is a claim about my experience), so I
by ekelsen 23d ago
I did and it's true, but I amended my statement at the top of this thread, which you've ignored.
What I wrote is true (it is a claim about my experience), so I'm not sure what you're attacking.
I amended my statement to avoid a discussion about the provenance which is not what I actually care about. What I care about is if I want to read it. Humans could theoretically write something in AI voice and if they did, I wouldn't want to read it.
I have not seen any examples of human text in LLM style that clearly predate 2023. If you can supply one, that would be incredible evidence.
If you're able to supply a prompt which generates text that fools pangram and is not like one sentence long or a list of names or something, but actual prose I want to read, then I will concede.
- estearum 23d agoOh, well sure, but I don't care about your preferences for what you'd like to read. You can use a Ouija board to decide whether something is worth reading for all I care, just don't use it to accuse other people of plagiarism or dishonesty. Duh. If your statement was "my super special dowsing rods tell me what I want to read with 100% accuracy" I'd say "cool." But that wasn't your claim. > If you're able to supply a prompt which generates text that fools pangram and is not like one sentence long or a list of names or something, but actual prose I want to read, then I will concede. This is an even more conservative claim than the one you just made! Sheesh. Have a good day.