this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
47 points (74.2% liked)

Technology

87469 readers
3428 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

there are plenty of people who can

Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?

I don't think it's particularly good at all, but it does while away the hours sometimes

What model are you using?

I can't see anyone who enjoys reading being enamored with AI.

Bold claim from someone who spends hours writing AI stories for themself. Then again, I guess I am assuming you consider yourself a person who enjoys reading.

My wife reads over 300 books per year, and she spots it pretty easily.

That's over 5 books a week. I find if difficult to believe she'd notice if you slipped a book she read in January book into the list for this month, let alone an AI generated story. Still, that's an impressive amount of books. My wife reads about 100 a year, but they're almost all in her favorite genre, crime drama, and I am completely certain I could get a decent AI model to output a full length book in that genre and she wouldn't notice. I'm not sure quantity of books read in a time frame really tells us much, either way, about the ability to detect AI generated writing.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?

Yes, thank you — you provided it. According to the paper cited, people with more familiarity with AI are much better at detecting its output than an average person. But I already knew that empirically.

What model are you using?

Mostly a fine tuned GLM 5.2 purpose-built for writing. Not that I haven't also used frontier models but they suck at uncensored roleplay with violence and conflict and evil bad guys and such. GLM still fails with errors of attribution and state.

Bold claim from someone who spends hours writing AI stories for themself. Then again, I guess I am assuming you consider yourself a person who enjoys reading.

shrug It's pretty bad but it's better than no roleplaying at all. Plus the interface lets me edit whatever I want so I can fix any outright errors.

I am completely certain I could get a decent AI model to output a full length book in that genre and she wouldn't notice.

That is interesting. The only time I really tried to use AI to write was a noir mystery. Dear god did it suck. It couldn't follow instructions at all. Show don't tell is probably more on display in noir than other genres and it couldn't do it without constant correction. It kept falling back to its standard voice of third person omniscient instead of unreliable narrator.

There were parts that were written well, but a lot that was just grating and gratuitous. I had to edit like 85% of the output. I had to keep arguing with ChatGPT to write differently. And every once in a while it would swallow its own writing because it tripped its own content warnings. I suppose that's neither here nor there on the writing quality, but we are far from having an AI write a novel without being full of tells.

AI isn't there yet in terms of a quality or undetectability. And it doesn't look to me like it's going to get there any time soon.