undefined

points

[-]

People can no longer freely point out when the fact that a piece of work is automated and the lack of meat are red flags as to the veracity of the content, but your antagonistic metacommentary for other people pointing out factual information is welcome discourse?

You claimed "this obsession with calling things you don't like AI generated" is "poor form", attacking the parent commenter by claiming they are lying about the nature of the content. However, multiple people have pointed out the clear signs which you missed, and the consensus is that you were wrong. Now you suddenly don't care about this point, and have introduced a new argument instead.

"From my point of view, all you've done is said a lot of nonsense and fabricated a convoluted explanation for why you think the text is bad"

What a bad-faith response. Categorically dismissive, vague, antagonistic and ultimately failing to critically engage with anything I said.

by famouswaffles5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Whether a piece of work is automated and 'lacks meat' is ultimately not something you can know for sure as a reader. Articles like this existed plenty Pre-AI and will exist plenty post-AI, involvement or not, so yeah pretty pointless to focus on that. It adds nothing and all we have to go is your own surety, which is fallible. If you can't recognize that then there's not much to say.

I didn't miss anything. I never cared about it one way or another. What clear signs have people pointed out ? This is the problem. It's apparently so obvious yet even the original commenter admits "It's things humans do too". What is clear about that ?

by soulofmischief3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Your inability to recognize the clear imprint of current-generation language models on this article doesn't mean they're not present.

All knowledge is ultimately fallible, but ignoring or not being able to appreciate the high statistical likelihood of this article being LLM edited/generated doesn't change reality.

You're asking me to share my expertise with you so that you can understand, but your antagonistic overtones make it not feel worth the time and effort. Other readers have also pointed out that it has characteristic idiosyncrasies. Feel free to look into it yourself, but it would also be wise to learn to defer these kinds of attacks until you have all the information.