[zmj]

Do people reading this post not understand that this is the output of a prompt like 'analyze <event> with <perspective> arriving at <conclusion>'? Tighten up your epistemology if you're arguing with an author who isn't there.

[placebo]

The very fact that people are arguing with a non-existent author signals that whatever generated the content did a good enough job to fool them today. Tomorrow it will do a good enough job to fool you. I think the more important question is what this means in terms of what is really important and what we should invest in to remain anchored in what matters.

[verbify]

The article is full of snow clones that I see in AI writing. Or as the AI would put it "that's style *without* authorship".

The point is still valid, although I've seen it made many times over.

[mk12]

This has been happening a lot recently, where an article immediately sets off all my AI alarm bells but most people seem to be happily engaging with it. I’m worried we’re headed for a dystopian future where all communication is outsourced to the slop machine. I hope instead there is a societal shift to better recognize it and stigmatize it.

[duskdozer]

I've noticed some of this in recent months. I've also noticed people editing out some of the popular tells, like replacing em-dashes with commas, or at least I think so, because of odd formatting/errors in places where it sounds like the LLM would have used a dash.

But at this point I'm not confident that I'm not failing to identify a lot of LLM-generated text and not making false positives.

[integralid]

>instead there is a societal shift to better recognize it

Unlikely. AI keeps improving, and we are already at the point where real people are accused of being AI.