The author ran for city council where I live. From what I remember of him, it would be very out of character for him to use AI to write a health article.
Edit: One of the few things I find more annoying than AI blogs is the gleeful rush to label everything as AI generated. It comes across as “I am so clever! You can’t fool me!” Meanwhile, that reads like a perfectly normal sounding thing for a human to have written. “This blog uses the word ‘the’ a lot. Sure sign of AI!”
I don’t think it’s even that. Someone could post an Emily Dickinson work and people would race to be the first to observe the number of tell-tale em dashes, pleased that they were cleverer than the other readers for not being tricked.
i agree with the premise of the article. i also wish the author had cared enough about such an important topic to actually write about it themselves. doing otherwise disrespects the reader
What was the AI detector? I would actually love to know what pangram scores it at; they claim to be state of the art. You should try it and report back!
Not sure why it 404s now — maybe hugged to death. You can try it yourself for free by copy pasting.
As someone who never uses AI to write anything and whose writing shows up as 30-40% AI, I have a very low level of respect for these detectors, as well.
> Cream in his coffee, butter in his soups, all the gristle he could handle.
I've noticed Claude is specifically fond of three-element lists consisting of (standard example of class), (standard example of class), (nonstandard example of class). It's interesting because Claude often gets the nonstandard example more or less incorrect -- in this case, because gristle isn't an example of a high-fat-content food.
The author ran for city council where I live. From what I remember of him, it would be very out of character for him to use AI to write a health article.
#IAmVerySmart
Edit: One of the few things I find more annoying than AI blogs is the gleeful rush to label everything as AI generated. It comes across as “I am so clever! You can’t fool me!” Meanwhile, that reads like a perfectly normal sounding thing for a human to have written. “This blog uses the word ‘the’ a lot. Sure sign of AI!”
Yup. Anything someone disagrees with is now "written by ai" as if that invalidates what was written.
I don’t think it’s even that. Someone could post an Emily Dickinson work and people would race to be the first to observe the number of tell-tale em dashes, pleased that they were cleverer than the other readers for not being tricked.
i agree with the premise of the article. i also wish the author had cared enough about such an important topic to actually write about it themselves. doing otherwise disrespects the reader
1 reply →
I appreciate the warning and it says to me this is an annoying read.
pangram shows 75% AI generated for the article: https://www.pangram.com/history/996e9766-0021-40b7-a226-a1cc...
That’s a 404.
And I recently had an AI detector give a 40% to an article I’d written 100% by hand, every word, with not so much as a Grammarly check involved.
What was the AI detector? I would actually love to know what pangram scores it at; they claim to be state of the art. You should try it and report back!
Not sure why it 404s now — maybe hugged to death. You can try it yourself for free by copy pasting.
As someone who never uses AI to write anything and whose writing shows up as 30-40% AI, I have a very low level of respect for these detectors, as well.
> The food was engineered to override satiety — proven, not suggested.
> Cream in his coffee, butter in his soups, all the gristle he could handle.
I've noticed Claude is specifically fond of three-element lists consisting of (standard example of class), (standard example of class), (nonstandard example of class). It's interesting because Claude often gets the nonstandard example more or less incorrect -- in this case, because gristle isn't an example of a high-fat-content food.
Parent is an AI writer and only an AI writer.
Edit: To be clear, if the parent can just spout this without evidence, I can make the same claim without evidence and be equally as right as they are.