Halfway through I was sure that there would be a reveal at the end of the article that the article itself was stored in the site's favicon, thus explaining the short, terse sentences. I was genuinely disappointed when I realized it wasn't. Missed opportunity!
I like the way it's written. I often write in a similar manner and I have never used LLMs to generate an writing for me. I have written exactly this way at work.
Too me, the author is just trying to get to the point. They know people start skimming if there is too much text.
> The favicon doesn't actually contain the whole website itself.
This is the kind of thing that is extremely idiomatic LLM speak. There's nothing particularly wrong about it per se, but it just makes everyone who is familiar with LLMs say "oh, it's written by an AI" and it just becomes disappointing.
for the first time in a while on HN, i disagree with the characterisation as AI-generated. at most it was drafted with an LLM, but the final output is pretty human to me.
they used the wrong it’s/its, made But. its own one-word sentence, didn’t capitalise HTML, and used “okayy” in parenthesis. all of this isn’t to criticise the writer - i enjoyed it more seeing these little imperfections that make up a blog post
FWIW -- I'm not as repulsed by it as the parent comment. But I do want to substantiate that it _is_ heavily LLM-written.
(If you're unfamiliar, Pangram has garnered a reputation as the leading LLM-detector, with a minimal rate of false positives; IME this has come with the tradeoff of being easy to manipulate/tweak your way into turning an LLM-generated piece of text into reporting a false negative, but for most folks that's worthwhile.)
Not just the length but the structure, the way the headlines are phrased, the use of "honestly", the "not X but Y", many things cumulatively, not one particular thing in itself. If you work a lot with LLM writing, you notice. Same way you recognize the writing style of famous authors. It's never one particular thing but many.
Yeah, but it's kinda weird. The typical LLM headers and bullet points are there, but it's like someone took an axe to the rest of the spew. I too would rather read someone's original bad writing than their bad editing of AI writing, but it's kinda interesting how this all shakes out.
It doesn't seem to be LLM, but reads like one. The author is German, maybe it's a language expertise thing, maybe he likes the LLM style (unrelated to his nationality).
But yeah, sentences that only have 3-4 word each feel like 3rd grade writing; I couldn't read it.
Hey, I've always written like this. In school I couldn't stand subordinate clauses and long sentences because I'd lose my train of thought. But yea, I've noticed that people often find it hard to read so I'm going to work on that
Halfway through I was sure that there would be a reveal at the end of the article that the article itself was stored in the site's favicon, thus explaining the short, terse sentences. I was genuinely disappointed when I realized it wasn't. Missed opportunity!
I like the way it's written. I often write in a similar manner and I have never used LLMs to generate an writing for me. I have written exactly this way at work.
Too me, the author is just trying to get to the point. They know people start skimming if there is too much text.
> The important catch
> The favicon doesn't actually contain the whole website itself.
This is the kind of thing that is extremely idiomatic LLM speak. There's nothing particularly wrong about it per se, but it just makes everyone who is familiar with LLMs say "oh, it's written by an AI" and it just becomes disappointing.
for the first time in a while on HN, i disagree with the characterisation as AI-generated. at most it was drafted with an LLM, but the final output is pretty human to me.
they used the wrong it’s/its, made But. its own one-word sentence, didn’t capitalise HTML, and used “okayy” in parenthesis. all of this isn’t to criticise the writer - i enjoyed it more seeing these little imperfections that make up a blog post
Looks largely AI-written, with some human edits: https://www.pangram.com/history/9afe7542-1085-4264-9691-2172...
FWIW -- I'm not as repulsed by it as the parent comment. But I do want to substantiate that it _is_ heavily LLM-written.
(If you're unfamiliar, Pangram has garnered a reputation as the leading LLM-detector, with a minimal rate of false positives; IME this has come with the tradeoff of being easy to manipulate/tweak your way into turning an LLM-generated piece of text into reporting a false negative, but for most folks that's worthwhile.)
I wouldn't trust Pangram too much. I've seen it give "100% LLM-written, high confidence" to multiple 100% human written articles (high confidence).
People do be having too much time...
Is the navigation of the site also AI generated? This doesn't make any sense and proves why these AI detectors don't work
1 reply →
I found the writing engaging and enjoyable to read.
There should be a pathology for thinking things must be LLM generated when it's simply not always the case.
People's ability to discern is completely fried.
It’s the new internet. So, so annoying.
Which bit? The short sentences?
Not just the length but the structure, the way the headlines are phrased, the use of "honestly", the "not X but Y", many things cumulatively, not one particular thing in itself. If you work a lot with LLM writing, you notice. Same way you recognize the writing style of famous authors. It's never one particular thing but many.
Agreed. Disappointing that more people don't notice it's AI.
Yeah, but it's kinda weird. The typical LLM headers and bullet points are there, but it's like someone took an axe to the rest of the spew. I too would rather read someone's original bad writing than their bad editing of AI writing, but it's kinda interesting how this all shakes out.
It doesn't seem to be LLM, but reads like one. The author is German, maybe it's a language expertise thing, maybe he likes the LLM style (unrelated to his nationality).
But yeah, sentences that only have 3-4 word each feel like 3rd grade writing; I couldn't read it.
Hey, I've always written like this. In school I couldn't stand subordinate clauses and long sentences because I'd lose my train of thought. But yea, I've noticed that people often find it hard to read so I'm going to work on that
3 replies →
Might stop using bullet points for not being flagged as AI lol
"Very small" -> yeah, this header is mostly AI generated. No hate against the author but this doesn't make any sense as header
I wish people would include their prompts.