upvote
> Artificial intelligence tools are used within a structured and supervised workflow as research and drafting instruments.

This has become the highbrow way of admitting that AI is writing the articles: Calling it “drafting” is another way of saying that the article was written by AI and the person publishing it maybe reviewed it. Maybe they skimmed it and published it directly.

For what it’s worth the article felt obviously AI heavy to my first read.

reply
> Calling it “drafting” is another way of saying that the article was written by AI and the person publishing it maybe reviewed it.

I don't think that's a safe assumption. You could construct an article pretty quickly if you had a topic, a few points to hit, a conclusion and a short list of links, then fed that to the machine. All the LLM would be doing is fluffing it up with worthless words, unnecessary metaphors and maybe a pop culture reference or two so it looks like what people expect from an "article."

"Rewrite this as a slate dot com article"

If it were an email newsletter instead, there wouldn't be that fluffy expectation and you could just leave the bullet points and links as they were.

reply
> I don't think that's a safe assumption. You could construct an article pretty quickly if you had a topic, a few points to hit, a conclusion and a short list of links, then fed that to the machine. All the LLM would be doing is fluffing it up with worthless words, unnecessary metaphors and maybe a pop culture reference or two so it looks like what people expect from an "article."

We’re not disagreeing? That’s basically what I said: The AI wrote the article. Saying it drafted the article is a way of admitting it was written by AI but making it sound like it was actually a journalistic endeavor.

reply
Interesting, something about the phrasing and pacing felt like AI to me, but not a model I’m familiar with - I guess that’s why. Usually I close articles once I realize they’re AI written, but this one was mild enough that I finished the whole thing.
reply
A good example of someone using AI as a tool and owning their output they should. The craftsman is still responsible for straightening the bent nail, even if it were the hammer that slipped.
reply
I suspect this is much more common than you're imagining. I think it'd be silly for publishers of any kind, really, to not use AI tools for things like fact checking and so on.
reply
Interesting. To me it reeks of AI, and the first major tell was the first paragraph, at which point I stopped reading.

> No human had. The crying had been synthesised from a fragment of audio, and the daughter she thought she was rescuing existed only as a pattern of numbers in someone else's machine.

reply
Yeah, I can't explain it but the headings feel very AI. And there are a bunch of things in the text that remind me of chats I have with Claude during the day job

>and it is worth being clear about why

>The emotional mechanism the scam exploits is not a gap in knowledge that a leaflet can fill; it is the love a person has for their grandchild, weaponised

>These are not the numbers of a credulous minority being separated from pocket money. They are the numbers of a generation's accumulated savings being drained

>that a fraud requiring the absolute frontier of machine learning can be perpetrated against an ordinary grandmother in her kitchen, at scale, for the price of nothing

(To be clear this isn't automatically disqualifying to me. But I am interested in LLM writing patterns and my ability to detect them. And in the case of this article I sense the kind of linguistic padding that has made Claude a little harder to work with in the more recent Opus point releases because it obscures the most important bits of information.)

reply
One of the best ways to 'detect' AI is to have a job where you're stuck reading novel output from Claude, etc. all day.
reply
That's pure generic "I'm getting paid by the word" article writing. If it reads to AI to you it's in part because AI has been trained on a billion articles like that.
reply