no_multitudes

5 ms·

31.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
What is the value of posting this? If I wanted to know what Claude thought about the article, that option is at my fingertips at all times. You are wasting time and space.
32.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Please give one example of a long-form verifiable non-adversarial pangram false positive (e.g., something written before 2022 that gives a result other than 100% human.)
33.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
People sometimes tell lies on the internet. This is definitely AI-generated.
34.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
I hope you are joking, or haven't thought this through! If you sincerely believe and act on what you're saying here, you should be shunned from polite society.
35.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
I often wonder if the people at anthropic actually believe in the existential risk stuff they talk about. If I was convinced AI could kill everyone, my actions would be almost diametrically opposite to theirs -- I would be committed to ceas
36.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
I do not like your product. It makes the world a worse and more annoying place to live. Please orient yourself towards good instead of evil in your future endeavors!
37.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Because it sucks! It's badly written, too long, and often pointless. I don't like reading tacky, useless garbage
38.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Simply write your own posts if you don't want people to think they are AI generated.
39.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Most of the people posting unedited LLM content all over the internet are unbelievably lazy.
40.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
How often do you add seemingly-random zero-width unicode characters to the text you write?
41.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Interesting hypothesis! I find that my internal sense of whether the article is AI almost always agrees with Pangram when I check it, and almost never triggers on pre-2024 text, even if I didn't know beforehand when it was written. I t
42.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Pangram's actual classifier model is really strong. It has an incredibly low false positive rate. Whenever people complain about it, I ask them to provide verifiable non-adversarial long-form false positives, and nobody has done so yet
43.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
It fits into the overall aesthetic of the article because the overall aesthetic of the article is "an unedited claude response"
44.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Claude, pick an arbitrary Japanese word that shows up often in anime and write a blog post about how deep it is.
45.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Can you give an example of long-form writing that sounds like this from before 2024?
46.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
I read this article about a week ago. Did you read my reply? I am interested in natural false positives (ones not written to fool the classifier.)
47.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
I agree Pangram's UI is awful and often misleading. Their underlying classifier model is pretty accurate in my experience, though, at least in the sense that it has very few natural false positives. If you disagree, please send me some
48.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
>Don't you and all the people in this thread claiming AI slop know that AI was trained on human writing? Do you think this implies that it is impossible to distinguish LLM-generated text from human text? I don't think that foll
49.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
I'm generally quite open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I said 100% for this one because it is tooth-grindingly obvious. Could you give me some examples of long-form writing like this from before 2024? Generally to retrain my
50.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
"And when the floor goes, the thing that decides what is worth keeping is no longer the cost of making it." I'm 100% confident that a human did not write this sentence unless they were deliberately trying to sound like an LLM
51.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Can you give some examples of Pangram false positives? Ideally ones from before 2024, or otherwise ones from notable writers who started writing before 2024.
52.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Can you give some examples of your writing that trigger "100% AI" on pangram? I'm very interested in studying pangram's false positives. Especially if it's something published before ~2024
53.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
I do not watch podcasts or news videos. I am basing my opinions on the content he writes in his free 5-10,000 word blog posts.
54.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
For the record, I agree that the generative AI industry might collapse. But I think Ed Zitron is ideologically committed to this belief in a way that is not a reflection of the evidence, and doesn't seem to update this belief based on
55.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
His history of predictions about LLMs is not great and he generally seems ideologically committed to pretending they're almost useless and teetering on the edge of collapse. For example, this article claims: "Every single story yo
56.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
It seems like you got bored halfway through and had an LLM write the second half of your post? You know there isn't a minimum length for blog posts, right? You can just stop writing.
57.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
> This obviously raises the question of how LLMs can now routinely solve open mathematical problems Because many open math problems can be solved by synthesizing two disparate ideas and then cranking the handle for hours and hours. I do
58.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
No, I think it is the work of many dozens of people, not one person. It's probable that LLM text was pasted directly into early drafts of the document, and plausible that some of that text survives in the final document. However, no se
59.
by no_multitudes 2mo ago
Do you have specific examples you think are LLM-generated? I have only read a few parts, but they did not seem primarily LLM-generated to me. Using em-dashes is really not a good signal for this IMO. I'm not saying you're wrong bt
60.
by no_multitudes 3mo ago
This will keep happening until we stop people from doing it.

More ›