6 ms·

The 2nd quote is when I realized this article was written or assisted by AI. Not that it's a big deal, that's our world now. But it's interesting to notice the

The 2nd quote is when I realized this article was written or assisted by AI. Not that it's a big deal, that's our world now. But it's interesting to notice the subtle 'accent' that gives it away.

dartos 1y ago
What about it gives off the AI smell to you?
- endtime 1y ago
  Nice try, ChatGPT. More seriously, for me it's the "likely".
  - ziddoap 1y ago
    Using "likely" is indicative of AI now...? Absurd. The only thing as annoying as people using AI and passing it off as their own writing is the people who claim everything written not exactly how they are used to is AI.
    - cyral 1y ago
      > This task, which likely required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge, was key to making the system work effectively and sustainably. This is obviously AI. The writer should know that it either required manual labor or it did not, not maybe (AI loves to not "commit" to an answer and rather say maybe/likely). It also loves to loop in some vague claim about X being effective, sustainable, ethical, etc without providing any information as to WHY it is. That and it being published on some blog spam website called techoreon. Edit: For fun, I had o1-mini produce an article from the original source (Techspot it looks like), and it produced a similar line: > This ingenious approach likely required significant manual effort and technical expertise, but the results speak for themselves, as evidenced by the system's eight-year flawless operation. What these sites are doing is rewriting articles from legitimate sources, and then selling SEO backlinks to their "news" website full of generated content (and worthless backlinks). It's how all those scammy fiverr link services work
      - soulofmischief 1y ago
        I've been approached to build a few of these sites now. No thanks.
      - ziddoap 1y ago
        At least this is a better effort at explaining why you would believe it is AI than the other poster who just says it's AI because they used the word "likely". I still find it very annoying that in every thread about a blog post there's someone shouting "AI!" because there's an em dash, bullet points, or some common word/saying (e.g. "likely", "crucially", "in conclusion"). It's been more intrusive on my life than actual AI writing has been. I've been accused of using AI for writing because I have used parenthesis, ellipses, various common words, because I structured a post with bullet points and a conclusion section, etc. It's wildly frustrating.
        cyral 1y ago
        > because I structured a post with bullet points and a conclusion section I do understand that this is frustrating, because in the last few months I see posts with these features everywhere. It's especially a problem on reddit, where there are numerous low effort posts in niche subreddits that are overdone with emojis, bolded sections/titles, and em dashes. Not all of these are AI but an overwhelming majority are to the point where if the quality of the content is low (lots of vague sayings), and it exhibits these traits, I can almost say for certain it's AI. What is also less talked about is now AI models are beginning to write without exhibiting these issues. I've been playing around with GPT 4o and it's deep research feature writes articles that are extremely well written, not exhibiting the traits above or classic telltale AI signs. I also had a friend ask it to write a fictional passage on a character description and the writing was impeccable (which is depressing because it was better than what she wrote). Soon we are not going to have any clue what is real and what isn't.
        fragmede 1y ago
        The kids ask ChatGPT to rewrite it using the diction of a 9 year old, so it doesn't look like it was AI generated. If you have a big enough corpus of writing, you could use yourself as the input style to emulate. Unfortunately I think we're going to has get over generated vs not as the technology improves. we'll have to judge a work based on its own merits and not use any tells. Quelle horrer!
    - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
      But using "likely" is obviously AI in this context, or at least it's really, really shitty reporting. This is supposed to be a news article, not someone who's hypothesizing about something that could have been. I mean, it either required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge or it didn't - no guessing should be required. If the author doesn't know, they can do proper research or simply ask the subject. FWIW this article didn't immediately scream AI to me either, until the commenter pointed out the use of "likely". When you think about it, it absolutely becomes a fingerprint of AI in this context - it's not just that "likely" anywhere means it's AI.
    - ajkjk 1y ago
      Your inability to tell when things are AI doesn't mean other people can't. Same phenomenon happens all the time with food or wine. One person thinks everyone is making up the subtle flavor profile comments and sneers at them. Everyone who can tell rolls their eyes. You can't convince someone that there's something they can't perceive besides just telling them. I've had this experience with records: as a kid I rolled my eyes at people wanting to listen to music on vinyl cause obviously it was the same; as my hearing has improved I have found I can clearly tell the difference and definitely prefer it.
      - ziddoap 1y ago
        >Your inability to tell when things are AI doesn't mean other people can't. I didn't even comment on whether this article is AI or not. My point is that it is absurd to point at a single word as proof of something being written by AI.
        ajkjk 1y ago
        well it's that phrase, not just the word, although the word is a tell. And it's not absurd. It is absurd to think it's absurd. You are being ignorant.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        ziddoap 1y ago
        It's absurd to think a single word (the comment didn't even say phrase), or even a single phrase, is evidence of AI. >"If it's interesting and/or you already have a relationship, which their publisher _likely_ does, it's pretty easy to get an article written." Woah, you must be AI. You used "and/or" and "likely"! (See how absurd that is?)
        ajkjk 1y ago
        You are being intentionally obtuse. It's not the word on its own, it's the word in context: in a news article in a sentence like that one. It's not a 100% given, but it's fairly strong evidence given a basic understanding of modern language informed by the era we're in. Of course it could be a journalist emulating AI for some reason. But the signal here is quite strong.
- realprimoh 1y ago
  this part: "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably".
- zahlman 1y ago
  Because it's presenting a bunch of smooth prose that utterly fails at logical continuity. 1. What point is the author trying to make? Leading off "Glubux even began" implies that the effort was extraordinary in some way, but if this action was "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably" then it can't really have been that extraordinary. The writing is confused between trying to make the effort sound exceptional vs. giving a technical explanation of how the end result works. 2. Why, exactly, would "removing individual cells and organizing them into custom racks" be "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably"? 3. How is the system's effectiveness related to its sustainable operation; why should these ideas be mentioned in the same breath? 4. Why is the author confident about the above points, but unsure about the level of "manual labor and technical knowledge" that would be required? Aside from that, overall it just reads like what you'd expect to find in a high school essay. Edit: after actually taking a look at TFA, another thing that smells off to me is the way that bold text is used. It seems very unnatural to me.
kubb 1y ago
How can you even tell?
Vegenoid 1y ago
I'm not on board with accepting AI-written articles. This is an article with little to no human input, farming clicks for ad revenue, that doesn't even link to the forum post, which is far more interesting and has pictures: https://secondlifestorage.com/index.php?threads/glubuxs-powerwall.126/ https://secondlifestorage.com/index.php?threads/glubuxs-powe... The article contains little detail, and has lots of filler like the quote in the parent comment. It's highly upvoted on HN's front page, which is surprising to me because I think there is quite a bit of distaste here for low-effort content to drive clicks. The thing the article is referencing is interesting, but the article is trash.
- facile3232 1y ago
  > I'm not on board with accepting AI-written articles. I haven't been on board with the "journalism" of the last fifty years, but this hasn't exactly prompted it to improve. Newspapers still have advertisements. Subscribers still have no say over editorial staff. The board still has say over the editorial staff. It's all fucked unless we can punt private ownership out of the equation.
  - organsnyder 1y ago
    What changed fifty years ago? You're pointing out issues that have existed for centuries.
    - facile3232 1y ago
      [dead]
  - namaria 1y ago
    80% of everything is crap. This isn't a very insightful position to take. One of the reasons I like Hacker News is it helps me find good stuff to read. Which this article isn't. So I will respectfully rebuff your rebuttal.
    - facile3232 1y ago
immibis 1y ago
I think a giveaway is: > This task, which likely required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge If you were a human writing this, you might consider asking the man how much labour and knowledge the task took. Writing AIs don't ask questions.
dang 1y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43549073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43549073 (after changing the URL - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43552105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43552105)

The 2nd quote is when I realized this article was written or assisted by AI. Not that it's a big deal, that's our world now. But it's interesting to notice the subtle 'accent' that gives it away.

dartos 1y ago

What about it gives off the AI smell to you?

endtime 1y ago
Nice try, ChatGPT. More seriously, for me it's the "likely".
- ziddoap 1y ago
  Using "likely" is indicative of AI now...? Absurd. The only thing as annoying as people using AI and passing it off as their own writing is the people who claim everything written not exactly how they are used to is AI.
  - cyral 1y ago
    > This task, which likely required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge, was key to making the system work effectively and sustainably. This is obviously AI. The writer should know that it either required manual labor or it did not, not maybe (AI loves to not "commit" to an answer and rather say maybe/likely). It also loves to loop in some vague claim about X being effective, sustainable, ethical, etc without providing any information as to WHY it is. That and it being published on some blog spam website called techoreon. Edit: For fun, I had o1-mini produce an article from the original source (Techspot it looks like), and it produced a similar line: > This ingenious approach likely required significant manual effort and technical expertise, but the results speak for themselves, as evidenced by the system's eight-year flawless operation. What these sites are doing is rewriting articles from legitimate sources, and then selling SEO backlinks to their "news" website full of generated content (and worthless backlinks). It's how all those scammy fiverr link services work
    - soulofmischief 1y ago
      I've been approached to build a few of these sites now. No thanks.
    - ziddoap 1y ago
      At least this is a better effort at explaining why you would believe it is AI than the other poster who just says it's AI because they used the word "likely". I still find it very annoying that in every thread about a blog post there's someone shouting "AI!" because there's an em dash, bullet points, or some common word/saying (e.g. "likely", "crucially", "in conclusion"). It's been more intrusive on my life than actual AI writing has been. I've been accused of using AI for writing because I have used parenthesis, ellipses, various common words, because I structured a post with bullet points and a conclusion section, etc. It's wildly frustrating.
      - cyral 1y ago
        > because I structured a post with bullet points and a conclusion section I do understand that this is frustrating, because in the last few months I see posts with these features everywhere. It's especially a problem on reddit, where there are numerous low effort posts in niche subreddits that are overdone with emojis, bolded sections/titles, and em dashes. Not all of these are AI but an overwhelming majority are to the point where if the quality of the content is low (lots of vague sayings), and it exhibits these traits, I can almost say for certain it's AI. What is also less talked about is now AI models are beginning to write without exhibiting these issues. I've been playing around with GPT 4o and it's deep research feature writes articles that are extremely well written, not exhibiting the traits above or classic telltale AI signs. I also had a friend ask it to write a fictional passage on a character description and the writing was impeccable (which is depressing because it was better than what she wrote). Soon we are not going to have any clue what is real and what isn't.
        fragmede 1y ago
        The kids ask ChatGPT to rewrite it using the diction of a 9 year old, so it doesn't look like it was AI generated. If you have a big enough corpus of writing, you could use yourself as the input style to emulate. Unfortunately I think we're going to has get over generated vs not as the technology improves. we'll have to judge a work based on its own merits and not use any tells. Quelle horrer!
  - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
    But using "likely" is obviously AI in this context, or at least it's really, really shitty reporting. This is supposed to be a news article, not someone who's hypothesizing about something that could have been. I mean, it either required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge or it didn't - no guessing should be required. If the author doesn't know, they can do proper research or simply ask the subject. FWIW this article didn't immediately scream AI to me either, until the commenter pointed out the use of "likely". When you think about it, it absolutely becomes a fingerprint of AI in this context - it's not just that "likely" anywhere means it's AI.
  - ajkjk 1y ago
    Your inability to tell when things are AI doesn't mean other people can't. Same phenomenon happens all the time with food or wine. One person thinks everyone is making up the subtle flavor profile comments and sneers at them. Everyone who can tell rolls their eyes. You can't convince someone that there's something they can't perceive besides just telling them. I've had this experience with records: as a kid I rolled my eyes at people wanting to listen to music on vinyl cause obviously it was the same; as my hearing has improved I have found I can clearly tell the difference and definitely prefer it.
    - ziddoap 1y ago
      >Your inability to tell when things are AI doesn't mean other people can't. I didn't even comment on whether this article is AI or not. My point is that it is absurd to point at a single word as proof of something being written by AI.
      - ajkjk 1y ago
        well it's that phrase, not just the word, although the word is a tell. And it's not absurd. It is absurd to think it's absurd. You are being ignorant.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        ziddoap 1y ago
        It's absurd to think a single word (the comment didn't even say phrase), or even a single phrase, is evidence of AI. >"If it's interesting and/or you already have a relationship, which their publisher _likely_ does, it's pretty easy to get an article written." Woah, you must be AI. You used "and/or" and "likely"! (See how absurd that is?)
        ajkjk 1y ago
        You are being intentionally obtuse. It's not the word on its own, it's the word in context: in a news article in a sentence like that one. It's not a 100% given, but it's fairly strong evidence given a basic understanding of modern language informed by the era we're in. Of course it could be a journalist emulating AI for some reason. But the signal here is quite strong.
realprimoh 1y ago
this part: "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably".
zahlman 1y ago
Because it's presenting a bunch of smooth prose that utterly fails at logical continuity. 1. What point is the author trying to make? Leading off "Glubux even began" implies that the effort was extraordinary in some way, but if this action was "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably" then it can't really have been that extraordinary. The writing is confused between trying to make the effort sound exceptional vs. giving a technical explanation of how the end result works. 2. Why, exactly, would "removing individual cells and organizing them into custom racks" be "key to making the system work effectively and sustainably"? 3. How is the system's effectiveness related to its sustainable operation; why should these ideas be mentioned in the same breath? 4. Why is the author confident about the above points, but unsure about the level of "manual labor and technical knowledge" that would be required? Aside from that, overall it just reads like what you'd expect to find in a high school essay. Edit: after actually taking a look at TFA, another thing that smells off to me is the way that bold text is used. It seems very unnatural to me.

kubb 1y ago

How can you even tell?

Vegenoid 1y ago

I'm not on board with accepting AI-written articles. This is an article with little to no human input, farming clicks for ad revenue, that doesn't even link to the forum post, which is far more interesting and has pictures: https://secondlifestorage.com/index.php?threads/glubuxs-powerwall.126/ https://secondlifestorage.com/index.php?threads/glubuxs-powe... The article contains little detail, and has lots of filler like the quote in the parent comment. It's highly upvoted on HN's front page, which is surprising to me because I think there is quite a bit of distaste here for low-effort content to drive clicks. The thing the article is referencing is interesting, but the article is trash.

facile3232 1y ago
> I'm not on board with accepting AI-written articles. I haven't been on board with the "journalism" of the last fifty years, but this hasn't exactly prompted it to improve. Newspapers still have advertisements. Subscribers still have no say over editorial staff. The board still has say over the editorial staff. It's all fucked unless we can punt private ownership out of the equation.
- organsnyder 1y ago
  What changed fifty years ago? You're pointing out issues that have existed for centuries.
  - facile3232 1y ago
    [dead]
- namaria 1y ago
  80% of everything is crap. This isn't a very insightful position to take. One of the reasons I like Hacker News is it helps me find good stuff to read. Which this article isn't. So I will respectfully rebuff your rebuttal.
  - facile3232 1y ago

immibis 1y ago

I think a giveaway is: > This task, which likely required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge If you were a human writing this, you might consider asking the man how much labour and knowledge the task took. Writing AIs don't ask questions.

dang 1y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43549073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43549073 (after changing the URL - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43552105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43552105)