Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkdcio | Hacker News Reader

I came to this thread hoping to read an interesting discussion of a topic I don’t understand well; instead it’s this

I have opened a wager r.e. detecting LLM/AI use in blogs: https://dkdc.dev/posts/llm-ai-blog-challenge/

I feel like it’s on every other article now. The “this is ai” comments detract way more from the conversation than whatever supposed ai content is actually in the article.

These ai hunters are like the transvestigators who are certain they can always tell who’s trans.

No. These articles are annoying to read, the same dumb patterns and structures over and over again in every one. It's a waste of time; the content gives off a generic tone and it's not interesting.

say that! that’s independent of whether AI/LLM tools were used to write it and more valuable (“this was boring and repetitive” vs “I don’t like the tool I suspect you may have used to write this”)

Are we reading the same article?

Also, you do realize that writing is taught in an incredibly formulaic way? I can't speak to English as second language authors, but I imagine it doesn't make it easier.

So is the vast majority of comments on HN (and in any comment section of any website) well before LLMs came into being, yet we give them a benefit of doubt. Users on forums tend to behave in a starkly bot-like way, often having a very limited set of responses pertaining to their particular hobby horses, so much so that others could easily predict how the most prolific users would react to any topic and in what precise words.

Now, apparently, we have a generation of "this is AI slop!" "bots".

> I will make a bet for $1,000,000!

> I won't actually make this bet!

> But if I did make this bet, I would win!

???

if two parties put up $1,000,000 each and I get a large cut I’ll do the work! one commenter already wagered $1,000, which I’d easily win, but I suspect this would take me idk at least a few days of work (not worth the time). and, again, for a million dollars I’d make sure I win

see other comment though, the point is that assessing quality of content on whether AI was used is stupid (and getting really annoying)

I don't have a million dollars but I'll take you up on it for like a grand. I'm serious, email me.

the problem is it’s a lot of work (not actually worth it for me for a thousand dollars) — but you cannot win

just one scenario, I write 100 rather short, very similar blog posts. run 50 through Claude Code with instructions “copy this file”. have fun distinguishing! of course that’s an extreme way to go about it, but I could use the AI more and end up at the same result trivially

This is so childish and pathetic it doesn't deserve a response.

why? LLM/AI use doesn’t denote anything about style or quality of a blog, that’s the point — and why this type of commentary all of HackerNews and elsewhere is so annoying.

obviously if a million dollars are on the line I’m going to do what I can to win. I’m just pointing out how that can be taken to the extreme, but again I can use the tools more in the spirit of the challenge and (very easily) end up with the same results

People object to using AI to write their articles (poorly). Your answer to them saying it's obvious when it's AI written is to.. write it yourself, then pretend copy-pasting that article via an AI counts as AI-written?

That's a laughable response.

my point is using AI is distinct from from the quality of blog posts. these frequent baseless, distracting claims of AI use are silly

this wager is a thought exercise to demonstrate that. want to wager $1,000,000 or think you’ll lose? if you’ll lose, why is it ok to go around writing “YoU uSeD aI” instead of actually assessing the quality of a post?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com