3 ms·
> You actually didn't. The construct is slightly different. Well I know that I did, so you are wrong with that claim, which sheds a strong (negative) light on
by teiferer 21d ago
> You actually didn't. The construct is slightly different.
Well I know that I did, so you are wrong with that claim, which sheds a strong (negative) light on other statements of fact that you posted in this discussion.
You may disagree with me, or I may even have gotten something wrong, but just claiming I didn't read the article ... sorry man, I thought HN had higher standards than that.
- wrsh07 21d agoI think they were referring to your fake llmism
- teiferer 21d agoAh thanks. Fair.
- no_multitudes 21d agoThey were pointing out that "It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." does not sound like LLM-generated text. It would sound kind of LLM-y if you had said "It's not an anti-Waymo article. It's an article about how assistive technology is quietly degrading research." (Of course, the correct approach to detecting AI is not counting LLM-isms, but feeding long-form text through a classifier model and picking up statistical correlations that are more in-distribution with LLM text than human text.)
- meowface 20d agoCorrect. I was already pretty sure, but I wouldn't have written that post without checking Pangram first.
- meowface 20d ago"It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." is not an LLMism. It superficially resembles one, but that's it. (Nor is what I just wrote, there.)