Where do you think llms learned to write that way?
The project is still very cool, but it’s a little less enjoyable to read when everything sounds the same. It would be just as annoying for people to manually write in a corporate/marketing style, because humanity is what makes the small web interesting.
It grinds my gears how so many people just talk about my writing style instead of the content.
Your previous blog posts didn't trigger any LLM detector (go on - check for yourself).
None of the 3x older blogs of yours that I tried went above 5% AI generated.
Maybe you're spending so much of time with the LLM that you are talking like it; in which case, take an old blog and a recent blog, give the prose from them both to you favourite LLM and ask them if the same author wrote both. I just did that on ChatGPT and on Gemini, and both found that it is extremely unlikely that the same author wrote both.
Look, if all the SOTA LLMs agree that your recent blogs sounds generated, you can't blame the reader, can you?
It thinks this is AI: “I bought a datacenter GPU that doesn’t even have a normal PCIe connector, stuck it in my gaming PC with an adapter, and now I have 32GB of VRAM across two GPUs running a 27 billion parameter model at 32 tokens per second.”
There’s nothing AI about that. Not all SOTA LLMs agree, hell, none of them do. The same exact example I sent here gives me 0% in some, 10% in others, 100% in GPTzero.
The ones I checked all agree: your recent writing is not the same author as your writing from 3 years ago...
You can check this yourself if you don't believe; make of that, what you will.
But yeah, probably feels sucky to have your style analyzed for AI writing. FWIW, the datacenter GPU post was great! I went to look at the ebay postings.
I did get feedback on all sorts of things over the years.
One of them was to do with sentence lengths.
I have not done the textual and statistical analysis to verify this, but I feel like it's something you could trace back to east coast journalism schools and publishers mediated via television, which long predates mass adoption of AI. Think how many news articles you've read with titles like 'Anatomy of a murder' os 'Inside the meeting that changed everything.' The hooky, slightly pompous tone is something you can find back as far as the 1960s or 1970s; browsing through old issues of Readers Digest and you'll find tons of it. When I say it's mediated through television, I'm talking about both the dramatic and heavily conclusory style of fictional prosecutors and narrators, and the extremely shallow style of TV news reports (often transcribed to the web) which are only one or two sentences per paragraph. And this is before we consider the stylistic impact of ad copywriting on communication in general.
And there's something else.
The one sentence paragraph interjection, designed to refocus your attention in a surprising new direction after two paragraphs of stuff you already know. 'I never thought I'd end upere,' said Sally Nocontext, hooking you in for another paragraph or two where you try to figure out who this woman is, where she ended up, and what it has to do with the article you are already halfway through reading. After all, I've come this far, the reader through. I might as well see it through to the end.
And that's just what publishers wanted.
One sentence can also validate a truism that the reader already suspects, flattering their beliefs in their own analytical powers....
...well you get the idea. When I'm using LLMs for any sort of extended session, I find myself reaching for the same few prompts to break it of such clicheed expression; I'm especially averse to the habit of adding zippy-sounding nicknames to complex or potentially dull concepts. I don't have a favorite starting prompt, but I generally find that asking for 'a concise, academic tone' does wonders to de-fluff its output. Remember, it defaults toward being as widely accessible as possible, and much journalism is aimed at consumers with only a high school education and maybe middle-school reading comprehension, math ability, and appetite for depth over sensation.
The point of "X is real" in a therapeutic context is to make the person feel seen and acknowledged, that his struggles are real to him and really do weigh on his mind, even if it is technically "all in his head".
Not from individual human content, that's for sure - maybe MLM marketing copy? Sleazy 4AM ads?
I mean, every time this response comes up, I keep asking the person to point at something written prior to 2022 that gets 80%+ on the LLM detectors, and yet no one can find anything.
Maybe you, postalrat, can find something written in this style that was published prior to 2022.
If they way you thought was to run a bunch of if statements, generate content, then feed that content back to get a "score" of what seems the most plausible, run the if statements again, and adjust / merge responses, then you would write similarly. The recognizable cadence of LLM generated content is pretty clearly the result of a lot of if statements being fused together.
I have then used a blog post of mine from 2021. QuillBot gave me 8%...
The King James version of the Bible came out at almost 100% AI generated a while ago. It was the HN front page.
Stop thinking that if someone writes in a way that is fun or looks like what you would think an AI writes, then it is AI generated. Loads of the time it is, but sometimes it's not, and it really hurts those like me.
Don't use Quillbot; not sure why, but their model is reluctant to classify anything as AI generated. I ran into this when proof-reading a students Phd - ChatGPT, Gemini, CLaude (and others) all agreed it was AI generated, but Quillbot said it wasn't.
I mean, seriously, which human says "the compute"?