4 ms·

I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be

I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be.

matheusmoreira 11d ago
Pangram seems to be very accurate. I don't think that's a good thing though. Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.
- plastic-enjoyer 11d ago
  > Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that. That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
  - matheusmoreira 11d ago
    > AI-generated rubbish Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality. > you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget. Best part is Claude warned me repeteadly that I should tone it down, and I deliberarely ignored it in order to preserve my voice and keep it pure. I'm much more inclined to listen now.
    - nixon_why69 11d ago
      If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
      - matheusmoreira 11d ago
        Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human? Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish? > I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republished AI amswers. I can do it too. I consider it rude to reply to people with AI answers during conversation. Not because I hate AI, but because it made the social interaction pointless. That doesn't somehow invalidate the value of an AI generated article though. Not everyone thinks to prompt it with that exact idea. Not everyone has an AI they can prompt. Not everyone wants to waste their limited tokens on the idea. I realize that reading Claudish can be aggravating but that doesn't somehow eliminate the ideas contained in the article. Those can still be very valuable, which is why I advocate for quality filters.
        nixon_why69 11d ago
        That's a little metaphysical for my taste. If its the same bytes of text, provenance is destroyed anyways, so who knows if the tree fell in the forest. "Substantially" to me would mean not your ideas and not your writing. I'm sure there are borderline cases that are hard to decide but a rule of thumb for me would be if it takes more time to read than it took the "author" to write.
        matheusmoreira 11d ago
        The issue is metaphysical. If AI can produce the exact same output a human would, does it matter who made it? It's possible for the ideas to come from the author while the writing is outsourced to someone else. Ghostwriting is an established practice. Effort involved in writing sounds a lot like the "sweat of of the brow" doctrine, which is rejected even by copyright monopolists.
        nixon_why69 11d ago
    - plastic-enjoyer 11d ago
      I’ve never said that you don’t deserve to be ridiculed when you write human rubbish, but I haven’t claimed the opposite either. However, I do believe that you definitely and without exception deserve to be ridiculed when you produce AI-generated rubbish.
      - matheusmoreira 11d ago
        Analyze the game theory of what you just proposed. Have AI effortlessly generate an article for your idea, get ridiculed. Put a lot of time and effort into it instead, maybe get ridiculed anyway. It's gonna be a no brainer for a lot of people.
climech 11d ago
Yeah, especially since we're exposed to so much AI-generated text these days, we may inadvertently pick up some verbal habits from it, the same way people tend to imitate each other. And needless to say false positives can be quite damaging here.
pasteleft 10d ago
Clearly it will make this even worse. Soon every HN posts will have some comments like "86% AI. Skip it."

I can't wait for AI watermark checks to be widely available to stop such guessworks and the resulting ridicule. I'm not saying you're wrong, your guess could be.

matheusmoreira 11d ago

Pangram seems to be very accurate. I don't think that's a good thing though. Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that.

plastic-enjoyer 11d ago
> Right now there is a lot of prejudice against AI users, and detection will only encourage that. That’s exactly how it should be. If you serve me up AI-generated rubbish that I’m then supposed to sift through, you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world.
- matheusmoreira 11d ago
  > AI-generated rubbish Implies you'd accept it if it wasn't rubbish. Seriously doubt your filter is based on quality. > you’ve earned the ridicule of the whole world As if human writing immunizes you from that. Published an article about garbage collection and had people complain about my human voice. One went so far as to suggest I had mental issues. I received praise too but some things you just never forget. Best part is Claude warned me repeteadly that I should tone it down, and I deliberarely ignored it in order to preserve my voice and keep it pure. I'm much more inclined to listen now.
  - nixon_why69 11d ago
    If its substantially AI generated then it's definitionally rubbish, even if it was a good answer to the prompt. I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republishing AI answers.
    - matheusmoreira 11d ago
      Please define "substantially". Exactly how many words must come from my hands and brain in order for a work to qualify as human? Imagine that I write an article manually and keep it to myself. Then I prompt my favorite AI model and it somehow generates the exact same article, against all odds, despite having never seen it before. Then I publish the AI's article, which is equal to mine. Is the article rubbish? > I can send a prompt myself, don't waste my time republished AI amswers. I can do it too. I consider it rude to reply to people with AI answers during conversation. Not because I hate AI, but because it made the social interaction pointless. That doesn't somehow invalidate the value of an AI generated article though. Not everyone thinks to prompt it with that exact idea. Not everyone has an AI they can prompt. Not everyone wants to waste their limited tokens on the idea. I realize that reading Claudish can be aggravating but that doesn't somehow eliminate the ideas contained in the article. Those can still be very valuable, which is why I advocate for quality filters.
      - nixon_why69 11d ago
        That's a little metaphysical for my taste. If its the same bytes of text, provenance is destroyed anyways, so who knows if the tree fell in the forest. "Substantially" to me would mean not your ideas and not your writing. I'm sure there are borderline cases that are hard to decide but a rule of thumb for me would be if it takes more time to read than it took the "author" to write.
        matheusmoreira 11d ago
        The issue is metaphysical. If AI can produce the exact same output a human would, does it matter who made it? It's possible for the ideas to come from the author while the writing is outsourced to someone else. Ghostwriting is an established practice. Effort involved in writing sounds a lot like the "sweat of of the brow" doctrine, which is rejected even by copyright monopolists.
        nixon_why69 11d ago
  - plastic-enjoyer 11d ago
    I’ve never said that you don’t deserve to be ridiculed when you write human rubbish, but I haven’t claimed the opposite either. However, I do believe that you definitely and without exception deserve to be ridiculed when you produce AI-generated rubbish.
    - matheusmoreira 11d ago
      Analyze the game theory of what you just proposed. Have AI effortlessly generate an article for your idea, get ridiculed. Put a lot of time and effort into it instead, maybe get ridiculed anyway. It's gonna be a no brainer for a lot of people.

climech 11d ago

Yeah, especially since we're exposed to so much AI-generated text these days, we may inadvertently pick up some verbal habits from it, the same way people tend to imitate each other. And needless to say false positives can be quite damaging here.

pasteleft 10d ago

Clearly it will make this even worse. Soon every HN posts will have some comments like "86% AI. Skip it."