3 ms·
"I'm not defending claudeslop, but <defends slop>". People obviously know this. The problem is that using a dramatic rhetorical flourish every third sentence fo
by applfanboysbgon 1mo ago
"I'm not defending claudeslop, but <defends slop>". People obviously know this. The problem is that using a dramatic rhetorical flourish every third sentence for completely un-dramatic things is fucking tiring. And so are the people defending this shit. "Oh, humans use em-dashes too, so actually there's literally no difference between a human using one or two and Claude using 400 em-dashes in one article". A human using things correctly and a language model using them incorrectly are not the same fucking thing.
- dingdongditchme 1mo agoI believe that what the previous commment is trying to say is that even when we identify phrases highly attributable to llm output we can never be certain. Which is the nefarious thing about broad use of computer generated text. I noticed comments here on hacker news containing conspicous mistakes which llms hardly ever do anymore and was wondering whether it was people purposefully adding mistakes to identify as noslop or whether llms got worse or if it was bots trying to fool me. My misspelling of conspicuous was left in on purpose in this case. All i can say is "trust me bro, I am not ai".
- simonw 1mo ago> The problem is that using a dramatic rhetorical flourish every third sentence for completely un-dramatic things is fucking tiring. 100% this. It's exhausting reading this stuff, and those dramatic flourishes are a big part of why.