> This article was written by a human, but links were suggested by and grammar checked by an LLM.
This is the second time today I've seen a disclaimer like this. Looks like we're witnessing the start of a new trend.
This is the second time today I've seen a disclaimer like this. Looks like we're witnessing the start of a new trend.
Personal blogs, essays, articles, creative writing, "serious work" - please tell us if LLMs were used, if they were, and to what extent. If I read a blog and it seems human and there's no mention of LLMs, I'd like to be able to safely assume it's a human who wrote it. Is that so much to ask?
If the content can stand on its own, then it is sufficient. If the content is slop, then why does it matter that it is an ai generated slop vs human generated slop?
The only reason anyone wants to know/have the disclaimer is if they cannot themselves discern the quality of the contents, and is using ai generation as a proxy for (bad) quality.
And I differentiate between "Matt Godbolt" who is an expert in some areas and in my experience careful about avoiding wrong information and an LLM which may produce additional depth, but may also make up things.
And well, "discern the quality of the contents" - I often read texts to learn new things. On new things I don't have enough knowledge to qualify the statements, but I may have experience with regards to the author or publisher.
(Some researcher's names I know, some institutions published good reports in the past and that I take into consideration on how much I trust it ... and since I'm human I trust it more if it confirms my view and less if it challenges it or put in different words: there are many factors going into subjective trust)