upvote
I know this is a spicy take, but it probably just means you're more eloquent in your writing than most netizens...

And that's not really a hard bar to clear if you look at how people write comments online (including places like GitHub).

Anyone that uses punctuation, and capitalises words, probably automatically gets past the 70% confidence line.

reply
It baffles me when I see ostensibly smart people refusing to click shift. Especially programmers. I know you can do it! I've seen you use curly brackets!
reply
AI detectors don't work.
reply
What it says (and this fact is not popular around here) is that you write better than the average person.
reply
Simple: The derived variance in your word usage and sequences, is outside the mean distribution range, that would be labeled as AI generated, given this specific evaluation algorithm

It’s not nondeterministic

you can probably do the shannon entropy calculation yourself if you understand what the evaluation algorithm is

That said…if the evaluator is non-deterministic, then there’s no value in the estimate anyway

reply
It probably means that your writing stylistically is close to the vector-space average of "good" writing, which is what AI produces.

FWIW, your comment history here does not look like AI at all to me, and I think I have a very (maybe too?) high sensitivity to AI slop.

reply
I haven't tried my HN comments; I've only tried things spanning more than a few sentences and that I've put more effort into. I only discovered this when my son put an e-mail I wrote to his teacher that he was CC'd on into the tool on his school iPad.
reply
have you tried pangram? it's basically the only good AI detector, and they have nearly 0 false positives
reply
> and they have nearly 0 false positives

I really don't see how this can be possible unless they're accepting abysmal recall? Perhaps I'm missing something fundamental here, but the idea that AI and non-AI assisted text can be separated with "nearly 0 false positives" just says to me that it's really just a filter for the weakest, most obvious AI generated text. Is that valuable?

reply
Pangram's explicit pitch is extremely low false positives, accepting that a higher rate of false negatives is acceptable.
reply
try it with something published before 2022. do you still get the same results?

I really doubt those tools are good for anything

reply
about you? not much. but i wouldnt spin up a blog, or even longer comments here, if you want to keep your sanity.

the amount of "that is obvious ai slop" comments i see on mine or other people's genuine non-ai writing has discouraged me from sharing anything more than roughly a paragraph for probably the rest of my life.

reply