9 ms·
This has a lot of ai-isms, wish they would share the pre-rewrite draft at this point.
by Spide_r 4mo ago
This has a lot of ai-isms, wish they would share the pre-rewrite draft at this point.
- beej71 4mo agoIf I take my 100%-handwritten prose and hand it to a detector, it tells me it's 30% AI. Those detectors are crap and they're training people to also be crap at it. I'm not changing how I write just to sound "less AI".
- sinuhe69 4mo agoZero-GPT says it's human written, with a fairly low score of 11.4% for AI. I think I should mention this, as some people seem to try to kill the piece by branding it AI-ism.
- knollimar 4mo ago[dead]
- knollimar 4mo agoIt seems human written with certain paragraphs that stood out to me. It felt like they had an ai pad for wordcount, but there was definitely organic content in there (at least from my taste)
- badlibrarian 4mo agoSome HN readers are blind to this, others are obsessed with it. ChatGPT claims 900 million active weekly users. You really think a dietician who writes for the Minnesota Reformer (whatever that is), trying to get the word out about his current "evidence-based" whatever, isn't getting a little robo-coaching along the way? This one sure smells like a human article that went through Claude 4.6 with a "proofread, identify passive voice, increase clarity, adapt to house-style.md, and make it fit in X words" prompt. Maybe the editor did it. The issue is the quality of the writing, which still needs work whether an LLM was involved or not. Most sources (Forbes, Business Insider) require the author to sign a waiver that indemnifies. That's the chilling effect, not the AI tells.