6 ms·

You’re right. The content sucks, because it was created with an LLM.

by nearlyepic 1mo ago

juleiie 1mo ago
[flagged]
- sailingparrot 1mo ago
  It matters if an article was written by an expert or someone that only has surface knowledge about the topic. It matters if it’s written by someone talented with words or by someone that has to churn 10 articles a day for a content farm. So clearly not all sources are equal, and that applies to LLM too. If you spend 4h of your time writing an article on something you care about it’s likely to be interesting. If the extent of the effort you are willing to put in the topic is 10 seconds of your time to ask ChatGPT to « write an article about phrack », then just don’t bother. We can all ask our own GPTs to do it for us whenever we want. In theory someone could iterate for 4h with ChatGPT to get to the exact words they wanted to say without having written a line of it, but unfortunately for those folks, 99% of the content generated in that way will be nice sounding emptiness, and people don’t want to read 100 pieces of BS just to find 1 good one. There is too much content online and not enough time to read it all, we gotta filter somehow, and LLM sounding prose is one of the best filter available today.
  - juleiie 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - sailingparrot 1mo ago
      > That isn't cheating. That's a tool doing what tools do. I should have known I was arguing with a bot all along
      - juleiie 1mo ago
        [flagged]
      - DonHopkins 1mo ago
        FYI, you're arguing with a petty psychopath who will threaten your life when she inevidibly loses an argument because the facts and evidence are not on her side.
- nearlyepic 1mo ago
  > Argue with the content I am. It sounds like it was written by an LLM. That's synonymous with uninteresting and derivative. BTW, likening not wanting to read LLM output to racism is possibly one of the funniest things I've ever seen on this website. Thank you.
  - juleiie 1mo ago
    It’s suprisingly similar. In each case you shouldn’t care who written the text. Only judge it as is. Whether black hands typed the words or binary hands. It just doesn’t matter.
    - nearlyepic 1mo ago
      It does, actually - people are alive and computers aren’t. In case you forgot.
      - juleiie 1mo ago
        Do yourself a favor and conduct a simple thought experiment that will destroy any possible argument. We are in year 2030, four years from now. LLM or similar architecture, produces output indistinguishable from a human. It can do this already if you are good at prompting to be honest. So you read an article and you have no way of knowing whether it is made by an LLM or whether it is made by a human. Do you cease to read anything released post 2026 out of sheer stubbornness/stupidity or do you keep reading articles? Because if you keep reading then you have no way of knowing, you already have read hundreds of AI generated articles without realizing. The survivorship bias has presented you with an article that is easy to see how it was made using AI. Now the plot twist is that it is already the 2030 for simple article generation and anyone can produce short text indistinguishable from 100% manual output. Hell it was possible a year ago no problem. So you focusing on whether the AI was used or maybe it was generated fully using some smaller local private model probably, is quite moot. It doesn't matter. It is still a bad article.
        nearlyepic 1mo ago

You’re right. The content sucks, because it was created with an LLM.

juleiie 1mo ago

[flagged]

sailingparrot 1mo ago
It matters if an article was written by an expert or someone that only has surface knowledge about the topic. It matters if it’s written by someone talented with words or by someone that has to churn 10 articles a day for a content farm. So clearly not all sources are equal, and that applies to LLM too. If you spend 4h of your time writing an article on something you care about it’s likely to be interesting. If the extent of the effort you are willing to put in the topic is 10 seconds of your time to ask ChatGPT to « write an article about phrack », then just don’t bother. We can all ask our own GPTs to do it for us whenever we want. In theory someone could iterate for 4h with ChatGPT to get to the exact words they wanted to say without having written a line of it, but unfortunately for those folks, 99% of the content generated in that way will be nice sounding emptiness, and people don’t want to read 100 pieces of BS just to find 1 good one. There is too much content online and not enough time to read it all, we gotta filter somehow, and LLM sounding prose is one of the best filter available today.
- juleiie 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sailingparrot 1mo ago
    > That isn't cheating. That's a tool doing what tools do. I should have known I was arguing with a bot all along
    - juleiie 1mo ago
      [flagged]
    - DonHopkins 1mo ago
      FYI, you're arguing with a petty psychopath who will threaten your life when she inevidibly loses an argument because the facts and evidence are not on her side.
nearlyepic 1mo ago
> Argue with the content I am. It sounds like it was written by an LLM. That's synonymous with uninteresting and derivative. BTW, likening not wanting to read LLM output to racism is possibly one of the funniest things I've ever seen on this website. Thank you.
- juleiie 1mo ago
  It’s suprisingly similar. In each case you shouldn’t care who written the text. Only judge it as is. Whether black hands typed the words or binary hands. It just doesn’t matter.
  - nearlyepic 1mo ago
    It does, actually - people are alive and computers aren’t. In case you forgot.
    - juleiie 1mo ago
      Do yourself a favor and conduct a simple thought experiment that will destroy any possible argument. We are in year 2030, four years from now. LLM or similar architecture, produces output indistinguishable from a human. It can do this already if you are good at prompting to be honest. So you read an article and you have no way of knowing whether it is made by an LLM or whether it is made by a human. Do you cease to read anything released post 2026 out of sheer stubbornness/stupidity or do you keep reading articles? Because if you keep reading then you have no way of knowing, you already have read hundreds of AI generated articles without realizing. The survivorship bias has presented you with an article that is easy to see how it was made using AI. Now the plot twist is that it is already the 2030 for simple article generation and anyone can produce short text indistinguishable from 100% manual output. Hell it was possible a year ago no problem. So you focusing on whether the AI was used or maybe it was generated fully using some smaller local private model probably, is quite moot. It doesn't matter. It is still a bad article.
      - nearlyepic 1mo ago