Emdash is useful punctuation — I use it all the fucking time.
On the other hand, "it's not foo; it's bar," once a quirky rhetorical flourish, now scans lazy and sloppy as shit.
Also, swearing like a motherfucking sailor helps establish one's humanity. So fuck off. No offense. Have a lovely day!
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.
That isn't really a rebuttal of my statement. It's not even particularly salient. Sure your average person might like AI writing and not be able to tell it from human works — just like they can't tell the authenticity of a photograph of Aunt Margaret from a photograph of Trump meeting an alien from Rigel IV. But there are plenty of people who can, and so anyone trying to pass slop off as their original work will be discovered. It's just a matter of time.
That being said, I use AI quite a bit in writing stories — though it's more like solo roleplaying. I don't think it's particularly good at all, but it does while away the hours sometimes, as long as your expectations are low. I can't see anyone who enjoys reading being enamored with AI. My wife reads over 300 books per year, and she spots it pretty easily.
If they aren't heavily editing, the text will be full of tells anyway. I don't think anyone is passing slop off as their own for long. They either use it a little bit and edit it enough to obliterate any markers and tells (which is fine, imo), or they are going to be discovered.
The difference between what you describe and what I describe, is that a 100% match isn't a hit. Nor is a 90/7/2/1. You need something with meaningful variability. Even within formal papers there are places where word choice is arbitrary as the article explains.
Of course, you're lacking the context of the full prompt and just feeding in the raw text. Again it gets way more reliable the more text you have.
But it's moot because the more text you have the more tells will sneak in and you probably don't even need an AI checker. Those phrases that AI loves but humans use comparatively rarely. It's not a tell — it's the whole game!
I'm not convinced that they even know 100% how Anthropic is doing it. I can think of an easier way that doesn't corrupt the text: just find a bunch of tokens where there is a good spread of token possibilities, and the more often the most likely one is chosen, the more likely it's AI.
That being said, it doesn't seem much different from what any of us do to identify AI text — it has lots of tells anyway.
So... he vibe coded it, hit a bug he couldn't fix, and said, fuck it, it's a feature.
He just wants to drive down the premium charge to use frontier models to destroy anthropoic and OAI. Then his support for open models will dry up. But in the meanwhile, let them fight. Having powerful local AI under my own control sounds great.
If it had changed to be trans and islamiaphobes
It hasn't. Or the block lists I'm using are fucking amazing.
Every last god damn word of this. Well said.
Maybe, if it's created after the text is generated. Keep in mind there really is no white space to an LLM. There's a lot of holes here. If it isn't embedded within the text itself, it is trivially easy to strip such markings. If it is, it at least requires a human to paraphrase.
On the other hand, if that's all it is, it would be easily detectable to disallow AI from editing human-written code while allowing it to revise its own output.
"Don't tell me what isn't so," has to be something I say on an hourly basis when I use AI. If you ever correct anything, it just writes itself little notes like doing something dumb would be the obvious behavior otherwise.
"This service does not use JPA, it uses JDBC, so don't add Hibernate to the dependencies."
Motherfucker, what? Four words: "this service uses JDBC." I swear it's a gimmick to make AI use more tokens.