Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

Thanks very much for posting this! I haven't yet finished reading the whole thing, but even just the first section about the history of LLMs, explaining some of the basic concepts, etc., I found to be a very well-written and useful info, and it was really nice that it linked out to source material. So many times when you go into reading stuff about the latest AI technique or feature it can feel like you need to do a ton of background reading just to understand what they're talking about (especially as the field moves so quickly), so having a nice simple primer at the beginning of this doc was most appreciated!

View on HN

…was this written by an LLM?

I’m starting to doubt anything on the internet that’s overly cherry and polite.

Sigh.

Reads like a normal comment to me. Doesn't seem like ChatGPT's typical writing style. It has far too much texture.

As someone who people often find stiff and formal, I'm really not looking forward to being accused of not existing more and more often.

I don't believe that it is generative, but I totally understand where you're coming from because it's an entire paragraphs worth of what amounts to simply thanking the author for the project, and doesn't add any salient meaningful content to the conversation.

We'll return to the age of laconic 90s snark, at least until bots start preloading with "Pretend you're an asshole teenager on the NYC subway in the 1990's, ...".

That or we kick into a world of ultra short lived memes, where the models will always lag. A rolling cipher of no-context memetic emojis to indicate someone is behind the keyboard.

Pretty confident this is human-generated. Its definitely the author's usual writing style

A: "Is it human?"

B: "Nah, can't be.It's too nice."

I've always thought of the Turing test as an emotional 'feels right' test to find out if something is like us.

> I’m starting to doubt anything on the internet that’s overly cherry and polite.

> …was this written by an LLM?

do you find that asking this is constructive?

I do actually. While I personally am excited about LLMs' potential for good, I think a large swath of the world is ready and equally as excited about their potential for harm / spam / fraud / etc. I'm already seeing bots popping up all over other social channels (Reddit in particular), posting a series of overly-cheery LLM-generated content designed to build up high-karma accounts which then get bought and sold on the not-so-open market so that end users can be further spam'd / defrauded. It sucks.

So I'm personally curious in fine-tuning my own "algorithm" for detecting fake content, and pointing it out is helpful for me and, I presume, others who think similarly (and I know there are others).

In this case I may absolutely have been wrong, but even the comments above added to my knowledge and helped.

So yes, I found it very constructive. I hope others did too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com