upvote

points

by bstsb12 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby fortuitous-frog10 hours ago|
[-]
Looks largely AI-written, with some human edits: https://www.pangram.com/history/9afe7542-1085-4264-9691-2172...

FWIW -- I'm not as repulsed by it as the parent comment. But I do want to substantiate that it _is_ heavily LLM-written.

(If you're unfamiliar, Pangram has garnered a reputation as the leading LLM-detector, with a minimal rate of false positives; IME this has come with the tradeoff of being easy to manipulate/tweak your way into turning an LLM-generated piece of text into reporting a false negative, but for most folks that's worthwhile.)

reply
upvoteby phyzome10 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I wouldn't trust Pangram too much. I've seen it give "100% LLM-written, high confidence" to multiple 100% human written articles (high confidence).
reply
upvoteby darianvc10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
People do be having too much time...

Is the navigation of the site also AI generated? This doesn't make any sense and proves why these AI detectors don't work

reply
upvoteby MomsAVoxell9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I have been writing for a long time, and using AI for as long as it was available to me, and I have noticed that I get accused of being an AI more and more - and I do not think that is because I am an AI, but because we are all being consumed with the AI mind-set, and thus the AI is taking over our thinking - so perhaps subconsciously, I am indeed formulating my thoughts in a more AI-centric manner, prompting the association across the vast distances of the internet by other human beings (- or, AI) of my conscious thought, with an artifice.

This is a banal insult, but it is also a dire warning wherever I see it - these days, people moaning about being AI may as well just be AI - automatic ignorance - but .. I do have to wonder.

Am I, AI?

reply