Comment by rdiddly
6 hours ago
I'm not getting that from it. Although I bet I would, if I started out presuming it's AI and let confirmation bias do the rest.
6 hours ago
I'm not getting that from it. Although I bet I would, if I started out presuming it's AI and let confirmation bias do the rest.
Prior to LLMs, I've rarely seen such headings when reading blogs, but now they are everywhere.
From the article:
> A kiosk that kept dying
> “It’s my device”
> Reality television
> The grind
> The relief pitcher
This is one of the giveaways for me.
1. I've said this in real life
2. I've said this multiple times in real life because fuck FAANG
3. that's a new one for me
4. Every colleague I've worked with has used this in real life, for decades
5. Also a new one
So... sorry what were we talking about?
That barely anyone with an organic brain would use any those phrases as a heading, much less all of them.
This article isn't particularly egregious but AI does come up with really cringy headings. Most often "the <irrelevant noun>" over and over.
3 replies →
Do no try to look at the individual examples, look at the overall style of headings. It's about style, people say such things, they are not unique.
The point is not that no one says these IRL, the point is that LLMs always tend to fall back on this kind of verbiage - they got it from us, they aren’t doing anything new or special, they’re just predisposed towards a very particular kind of voice / word choice in prose.
I will echo the flagged comment in spirit:
Those are wild headings that read like an op-ed on a site covered in ads. I've said some of those things irl, and "relief pitcher" is a thing, and in solution those phrases are fine. As section headings it's wild imo
I think we’re talking about the obvious AI tells that apparently only some of us can see.
Versus some of us look at five tells and say “nah, this is fine in isolation” over and over.
I also had the feeling that it's AI written but not everything appeared that way. I checked it with Pangram and GPTZero and both returned with a verdict of a mix of AI and human writing. Pangram thinks it is about 50-50.
I’m pretty confident it’s AI that has been told to model a writing style.
Only if that writing style is “incoherent bullshit”.
From the article: “It talked itself into helping me by checking whether it should. So it does have some sort of soul. I said that out loud, to an empty room.”
What?!
No, the writing style is clearly AI.
I enjoyed the content nonetheless.
It's heavily written with AI. Very painful to read.
> One breath: the use-after-free let us free memory the kernel still used. Winning a race let us reclaim it with controlled data.
Yeah, this section stood out the most to me, but I feel it was a decent summary nevertheless.
I agree, I more-or-less enjoyed the post. I just can't read LLM-written posts easily these days, not out of some moral objection, it just gets really boring reading articles from the same author all day, every day.