alt Hacker News> Not if an LLM over chat can fool most people they're talking to a human (which it can)
I keep hearing this claim, and yet I keep seeing LLM output which is trivially distinguished from human writing. I really can't understand how this gap persists; but then, there seem to have been at least some people who couldn't sniff out ELIZA, back in the day, too.
Replies
By definition, you won't be able to tell the ones that are fooling you apart.
Many, many people became friends/got romantically entangled with GPT-4o, to the point where OpenAI struggled to replace it due to user backlash.
Most users aren't very critical of the output. They just want a sycophantic ear, and 4o was perfect for that task. It's not _good_ but there is high demand for it.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674
From the abstract: "When prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human 73% of the time: significantly more often than interrogators selected the real human participant. LLaMa-3.1, with the same prompt, was judged to be the human 56% of the time"
>I keep hearing this claim, and yet I keep seeing LLM output which is trivially distinguished from human writing.
That's mostly true for longer LLM output with all the sycophancy / LinkedIn bias thrown in.
Make it casual conversation or comments, and give it instructions on appearing casual, or even better kill the censoring and fixed-prompt (with an open model), and it's orders of magnitude more difficult, unless if you suspect it and try specifically tailored prompts to sniff it.
There's no shortage of people obliviously discussing with AI bots in comment sections.