Yeah I enjoyed the first bit, then “the one exception” made me go “hey, Claude does this to me all the time” and then it ruined the article for me.
replyYeah, I also got suspicious and checked it with Pangram. Sadly 100% AI. Perhaps it still has good points, but my heart drops whenever I sniff the AI prose. I can just query Claude or ChatGPT myself, you know?
replyAI detectors are notoriously bad at actually detecting AI. I would not take those things at face value at all.
replyThat was my impression in the past as well, but by all accounts pangram works well, at least at the moment.
replyIt also seems quite plausible that it can be made to work by training on a lot of model output. Most of us already have become very sensitive to the various idiosyncrasies of model writing, after all. They have a very distinctive style.
It turns out AI writes like that because humans write like this. It seemed like AI to me too but when I read all of it, it definitely does not seem like AI anymore, just the style of self help blog post seem a couple decades ago.
replyYeah, disappointing to see it so highly upvoted. So many tells of AI slop:
reply> There’s a clean exception to all of this, and it flips the entire logic.
> If letting go of the argument sounds like pure loss, here’s the reframe that turns it into a gain.
> The ego is lowered. The defenses are down. The advice lands.
Even if there was some human insight that went into it, the output could be reduced in length by 80+% without any loss of substance.
I thought the same thing. I do think the first section was written or at least edited by hand. The rest could've been an email, so to speak.
reply