[mattvr]

The detectors are wrong. Here’s the thing: AI slop has a distinctive structure that many of us spot from a mile away.

The kicker? This setup-punchline format sets off a red alert for astute readers’ AI detectors.

This isn’t just AI slop, it’s an industrial AI sludge factory.

(note: this was ironically written by a human)

[cycomanic]

You realise the irony right? You say say AI "slop" has a distinctive structure, but at the same time you (and the other poster) say that AI tools can not detect it? For what it's worth I'm an AI sceptic, but one thing that AI tools are good at is pattern matching (that's really all they do). But somehow pattern matching AI writing is so obvious to human's but it completely fails all AI tools (just tried another tool which said 100% human).

It doesn't match up. Moreover it's getting tiring, because every single article has these comments on them, and I've seen enough examples where authors showed up in discussions or texts were from before LLMs were widely available, but posters were still adamant that the text was AI generated.

I highly doubt that people here would reliably pick out (success rate > 60%, i.e. you get 60% of guesses correctly if text was generated by a human or LLM) LLM generated text that completely fools 90% of AI detectors.

Regarding the setup-punchline format, guess what, those were popular way before LLMs (not surprising LLMs must have learned them from somewhere).

[bavell]

What detection tools are you using and why do you have such confidence in them? How reliable are they and how do you know? Why do you think these particular tools are better pattern matchers than actual humans (on HN no less)?

Food for thought, fwiw I think you have some valid points.