Reads at least partially like LLM writing, for example:
> When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates.
> It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
> When code production gets cheap, the cost doesn't disappear. It migrates.
> It was true then. It is unavoidably true now.
I find the constant critique of punchy style a bit tiring. It would be more productive for the grandparent to think about the content and state an opinion.
Sometimes a "punch in the face" is useful. Makes you re-evaluate things. Being punched in the face all day, every day, is just tiring.
Any good human-written text that provides useful information is likely to highlight in this way or in equivalent ways the contrast between what the reader is expected to incorrectly believe and the reality.
When the reader already knows what the text has to say, that text is superfluous.
Therefore a text that provides new and unexpected information, so it is a useful text, must use some means to explain to the readers the errors of their ways.
It may use simple superposition like "it is not ... it is ..." or it may be more verbose and add "but", "however", "nonetheless" etc.
I believe that it is counterproductive to use this kind of pattern as a method for detection for AI-written texts, because it is normal for it to exists in useful human-written texts.
What should be commented is whether that claim is true, i.e. whether indeed the second part with "it is ..." is true, or whether all of the pattern is superfluous, because none of the expected readers is not already aware that the first part with "it is not ..." is true.
Edit: In my observation it seems that people's opinions that do not agree with you get labeled as "AI Generated" more than opinions that agree with yours.
I'm surprised people aren't taking the time to edit this very specific kind of phrasing out of their writing. It's such a common AI tell now that, even when writing by hand, I'd just avoid it entirely.
Then again, I hated that LLMs co-opted the em-dash, and I refuse to stop using it, so I suppose I get it.
And I'm saying this as somebody who is strongly against LLM-generated content of this form.
But I do have somewhat of a problem with unedited text. Personally, I even take the time to edit my HN comments.
And, for the same reason I'd have a problem watching the same episode of the same show every day, I have a problem with reading text that feels like a super derivative clone of tons of other writing. Which is usually what you get when you don't edit your AI-generated text.
But the question was about somebody who does write the text themselves, who edits it themselves, no AI has ever touched it, but the result still has elements of what AI text typically has. Because it's their style. Why should such people have to adapt? Just so they don't end up in a witch hunt? How about texts older then 2, 5, 10 years? Should they be changed too? And how about if "LLM style" changes over time?
Even without touching moral/ethical/normative reasons, it's impractical. LLMs will continue to incorporate the most popular phrasings or grammars, and touchy readers will simply pivot to a new "telltale" du-jour.
Eventually any personal or organic writing will be gone, as one twists themselves into an artificial form of "the inverse of the LLM."
> Michael Bolton: "No way, why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
It's impractical to edit your AI-generated writing to put it in your own voice? People have been writing unique stuff for millennia.
Hold up, the subject was writing which is not "AI generated", and the edits authors might make out of fear of being falsely accused.
If that's not what you intended, then I think your earlier comment is in error, since I'm not the only one who read it that way.
there are many apps with ai-generated ideas, specs, and functionality. nobody uses them because of the contempt.
in either case, the part that's user-facing is ai-resistant
The user interacts with the code, and if it's sloppy AI generated code, it's going to impact the user somehow. Be it through poor performance, bugs, security holes, you name it.
Maybe I was naive in thinking the bar was higher than "as long as I can't tell an LLM wrote it that's good enough for me."
That's kind of similar to written content being posted and linked. There's an expectation that you are asking someone to take time to read it, and with LLMs now the cost to generate things to be read is a lot lower but our attention and capacity to read them remains the same.
One giant PR versus dozens of smaller ones, what's the difference? LLMs are going to send it your way whether you like it or not. No one is going to argue that usage of LLMs is going to lead to less code that has to be reviewed than normal, are they? It's by design since you're able to produce more code now, remember?
> There's an expectation that you are asking someone to take time to read it, and with LLMs now the cost to generate things to be read is a lot lower but our attention and capacity to read them remains the same.
I could understand this argument if this had been a 500 word blog post expanded out to 50K words, but it's not. And who's to say the author didn't write most of it and just had an LLM do a little polishing?
Pendulums always swing back and forth between extremes but oh boy did this one swing fast into witch hint territory.
In particular, I have never had the curiosity of going to one of those vibe coded weekend projects' repository and peek at the code. Now that I think about it, maybe I should! Thanks for making me reflect on this.
I am concerned that one day I'll run into a PR that superficially looks good but that's badly structured in non immediately obvious ways or that has subtle errors due to the author not knowing well what they are doing. And on the longer term, that a code base with too many such contributions ends up being fragile and difficult to work with.
In any case I suppose I'll be looking for places to work where LLMs are not or little tolerated if they keep being a notable thing in the longer term.