6 ms·

AI fluff

by noname120 3mo ago

AI fluff

opem 3mo ago
and what makes you say that?
- Zopieux 3mo ago
  It has all the tells. There are websites which list them, please search "LLM tropes".
  - bluebarbet 3mo ago
    "This was AI" itself has all the tells of an irrational panic which typically accompanies new technology, like UFO sightings in the 1950s. If ever it is still possible to "tell" AI writing, it soon will not be. So best (IMO) just to respond to the substance of the writing and move on.
    - refulgentis 3mo ago
      > "This was AI" itself has all the tells of an irrational panic which typically accompanies new technology, Being able to tell who wrote something doesn't imply irrationality, panicking, or a reaction to new technology. > like UFO sightings in the 1950s. UFO sightings stayed confined to the 1950s and were a reaction to new technology? Or were the UFO sightings in the 1950s the only UFO sightings that were a reaction to new technology? I'm not sure how this being clarified will be able to explain how identifying the writer of text is the same as a UFO sighting in 1950, but I'm open to it, I try to stay rigorously rational (c.f. X does not imply Y in first pull quote) > If ever it is still possible to "tell" AI writing, it soon will not be. Why not? n.b. I quit my job at Google to build an AI client and have been working on it full time for 3 years. I love AI. I don't think there's a rational argument that justifies the idea it's better to never opine the author of some writing was AI, and the arguments offered here are particularly weak, at their face. As an opinion, solely? Fair enough.
      - ranger_danger 3mo ago
        I think the main problem is you can't really ever tell with a high degree of certainty, people are just guessing based on what they see in an unscientific way. And the fact that AI is trained on human data, meaning what we see is in fact things humans have already done themselves, makes it even harder to "know" for certain IMO.
        refulgentis 3mo ago
        > the main problem is you can't really ever tell with a high degree of certainty This is false, it is trivial to find humans with 99%+ accuracy[1] and there is a well-known service with 99%+ accuracy when analyzed by 3rd parties with no affiliation.[2] > people are just guessing based on what they see in an unscientific way As we see above, this is just guessing in an unscientific way. :) It's important to be rational! We all agree on that. :) FWIW it did used to be true that the 3rd party services were junk. And I don't support the idea of humans just winging it when there's consequences. The case we're in is about the most mundane and consequence-free, the vast majority of us use AI daily and we're commenting on an internet aggregator that is aggregating a blog article. [1] People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text - https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.267/ https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.267/ [2] Artificial Writing and Automated Detection” - https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-automated-detection/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-aut...
        ranger_danger 3mo ago
        > This is false, it is trivial to find humans with 99%+ accuracy Sorry but no, this is also false. AI is largely trained on human data. What it outputs is also largely what a human would output. We could both easily make up the exact same sentences (especially smaller ones) and there is NO way to tell what the real source of a sentence is, especially considering the source can be multiple things (AI and human) at the same time! There is no amount of literature you could provide or anything you can do or say that would change my mind on this.
- drdexebtjl 3mo ago
  > It's not the data, it's the keys is a heading edit: >On ATProto, your PDS doesn't just store your Bluesky posts. It stores everything. >Not just your Bluesky account. Your ability to post, commit, publish, or interact across every ATProto app. >The repo data itself isn't the issue. It's all public anyway, >An attacker, a state actor with a warrant, or a rogue employee doesn't just get read access. They get the signing keys
Zopieux 3mo ago
So annoying to read. Meanwhile, the key information ("backup key with higher priority") is mentioned in a sentence without any kind of elaboration or link to some follow-up/how-to.
Stmz_Kinetics 3mo ago
I have also the online services and i don't know where to put the people feedback, the reddit banned my account, and also here , it says , wait until we allow you to post

AI fluff

opem 3mo ago

and what makes you say that?

Zopieux 3mo ago
It has all the tells. There are websites which list them, please search "LLM tropes".
- bluebarbet 3mo ago
  "This was AI" itself has all the tells of an irrational panic which typically accompanies new technology, like UFO sightings in the 1950s. If ever it is still possible to "tell" AI writing, it soon will not be. So best (IMO) just to respond to the substance of the writing and move on.
  - refulgentis 3mo ago
    > "This was AI" itself has all the tells of an irrational panic which typically accompanies new technology, Being able to tell who wrote something doesn't imply irrationality, panicking, or a reaction to new technology. > like UFO sightings in the 1950s. UFO sightings stayed confined to the 1950s and were a reaction to new technology? Or were the UFO sightings in the 1950s the only UFO sightings that were a reaction to new technology? I'm not sure how this being clarified will be able to explain how identifying the writer of text is the same as a UFO sighting in 1950, but I'm open to it, I try to stay rigorously rational (c.f. X does not imply Y in first pull quote) > If ever it is still possible to "tell" AI writing, it soon will not be. Why not? n.b. I quit my job at Google to build an AI client and have been working on it full time for 3 years. I love AI. I don't think there's a rational argument that justifies the idea it's better to never opine the author of some writing was AI, and the arguments offered here are particularly weak, at their face. As an opinion, solely? Fair enough.
    - ranger_danger 3mo ago
      I think the main problem is you can't really ever tell with a high degree of certainty, people are just guessing based on what they see in an unscientific way. And the fact that AI is trained on human data, meaning what we see is in fact things humans have already done themselves, makes it even harder to "know" for certain IMO.
      - refulgentis 3mo ago
        > the main problem is you can't really ever tell with a high degree of certainty This is false, it is trivial to find humans with 99%+ accuracy[1] and there is a well-known service with 99%+ accuracy when analyzed by 3rd parties with no affiliation.[2] > people are just guessing based on what they see in an unscientific way As we see above, this is just guessing in an unscientific way. :) It's important to be rational! We all agree on that. :) FWIW it did used to be true that the 3rd party services were junk. And I don't support the idea of humans just winging it when there's consequences. The case we're in is about the most mundane and consequence-free, the vast majority of us use AI daily and we're commenting on an internet aggregator that is aggregating a blog article. [1] People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text - https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.267/ https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.267/ [2] Artificial Writing and Automated Detection” - https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-automated-detection/ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-aut...
        ranger_danger 3mo ago
        > This is false, it is trivial to find humans with 99%+ accuracy Sorry but no, this is also false. AI is largely trained on human data. What it outputs is also largely what a human would output. We could both easily make up the exact same sentences (especially smaller ones) and there is NO way to tell what the real source of a sentence is, especially considering the source can be multiple things (AI and human) at the same time! There is no amount of literature you could provide or anything you can do or say that would change my mind on this.
drdexebtjl 3mo ago
> It's not the data, it's the keys is a heading edit: >On ATProto, your PDS doesn't just store your Bluesky posts. It stores everything. >Not just your Bluesky account. Your ability to post, commit, publish, or interact across every ATProto app. >The repo data itself isn't the issue. It's all public anyway, >An attacker, a state actor with a warrant, or a rogue employee doesn't just get read access. They get the signing keys

Zopieux 3mo ago

So annoying to read. Meanwhile, the key information ("backup key with higher priority") is mentioned in a sentence without any kind of elaboration or link to some follow-up/how-to.

Stmz_Kinetics 3mo ago

I have also the online services and i don't know where to put the people feedback, the reddit banned my account, and also here , it says , wait until we allow you to post