I'm the author of this text. It was originaly writen in a mix of russian and english WITHOUT the AI and then polished and translated by editors. Here is the original draft https://blog.flipper.net/p/b5b7e9f8-a99f-4393-bf72-23fe5a42e...

Tbh, I'm getting more frustrated with the ever-coming flood of "Bah I didn't read because it was obvious AI blah blah" which seemingly every single submission HAS to come with nowadays on HN, god forbid someone is more interested in the content than the flow of the words.

If you have specific complaints about the text and content, bring those up instead, and we could discuss those or even correct the linked page itself, as it seems to be a wiki. But general complaints that could be copy-pasted for any submission, just so you can feel heard about that you think this was AI written, gets so tiring to read for every submission.

I read it and understood the project goal and the difference between the old and new versions. What else is there to get from this? If I want to read good prose I have plenty of books to pick from. This is just a product pitch that effectively communicates the idea.

I just long for some sort of attestation system where, if you want to use an em dash, you must first drink a verification can or eat some verification doritos to prove you are a meatbag with a digestive tract

> The writing in TFA is clearly supervised by a human, but still, the wording is not human at all.

I don't see the AI 'tells' in this article. What are you noticing? They use a lot of em-dashes but they use them in a very human way.

I am far more relaxed about the actual or potential use of AI to help with delivering an article. As long as the content is accurate, then why care?

There are several valid reasons why AI could have been used - e.g. For translation or in cases where someone might be a tech ace but struggle to write a well structured article.

This is not a forum for literature or poetry. As long as it is readable and accurate, that is what counts.

In any case the AI genie is out and is only going to get better, until it becomes almost impossible to distinguish from 100% human text. If we are going to try police everything we read, that will just become an exercise in frustration. There are bigger things in the world to worry about.

I'm actually confused by how people even use LLMs to write these articles. They sound so synthetic that I assume the LLM wrote most or all of the text, but how?

Do they just write a bullet list of notes and then tell the LLM to go wild?

We're living in the ai;dr era :)

IMO the article was a great intro to the project and I really like how the thoughts were laid out. I got a lot of food for thought from it and I'd recommend that people read it. I don't care how it was written.

AI can produce interesting thoughts just like you can produce meaningless flamewars.

> the wording is not human at all

Or they are not a native speaker. I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation". Use a LLM to clean up your own prose? Bad. Post your unedited (or self-edited) prose? I guess it is "not human".

fwiw, it's the word "honestly" for me. or more specifically, "honestly?". it's the new em dash.

This is a style over substance argument. At least I understand what the project is really about now. Honestly the choice here is either poorly written english or AI writing. For a technical doc like this, Ill take the AI

Some people -- many people, actually -- use em dashes in their writing. Real people even use contrast to make a point on occasion, believe it or not. It's not AI writing that bothers me, it's the constant complaining about the supposed tells that prove something is AI-written.

Sincerely, A real human

But you don’t really know that do you?

The other day I was criticized for posting a comment people thought was AI but was actually not.

I’m starting to notice that more often with others as well. Happens sometimes to those who were always using emdash, sometimes to those who happen to have traits that these machines themselves learned from how to write, and now they sound suspicious.

I don’t think this means we should never call out slop or lazy writing, but it does seem our ability to detect this stuff is on a spectrum. Some of it is obvious. But beyond a certain point, for example with this article, the signals can become too weak to make any strong claims.

It’s disconcerting to admit that we’ve come to a point where it’s possible to be completely fooled one way or the other by what’s human or AI. Lots of stuff we can still detect, and sometimes it’s obvious, but at the margins we can no longer reliably discriminate.

Odd, I just read the entire article and never felt that way at all. When I'm reading AI generated text, it triggers something in my lizard brain, but this didn't.

hmm so have we not figured out a way to certify human generated content from AI generated content yet?

[dead]

Y'all have become these super annoying human captchas where I have to proof that I am actually a human being who writes their own thoughts in their own words, just because you feel like accusingly saying: "But you used AI for writing!"

It's getting super frustrating and annoying.

Yes, loads of articles are written with AI. So what? Don't judge a fucking book by it's fucking cover.

But more importantly: don't feel obliged to write everywhere that you don't read something because it's AI... Just don't read it.

Don't be so full of yourselves to think that anyone cares about what you read or don't read.

When the AI is good enough to be indistinguishable from a human author, will you still care, or will you then accept it?