idk why this is getting downvoted, I also got this sense, plugged it into Pangram and indeed, 80% AI-written score.
I guess that's fine, but after awhile I get a spidey-sense reading something that feels like a Claude session.
I guess that's fine, but after awhile I get a spidey-sense reading something that feels like a Claude session.
I'm moving on to evaluating articles with a modified lie detector test and tarot cards, I'm sure that'll help my credibility and give my public rejections more authority.
1: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-aut... 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654
But procedurally, there are huge issues involved with automated tools used to harm other people. You are one of the 0.5% percent of people whose article was flagged as LLM-generated when it wasn't, one of the false positives. What do you do? Argue? The accusers will claim that you're 99.5% likely to be lying.
It's the same issue we have with automated customer service, automated insurance claims, and so forth. It is usually correct, and terrifically unjust when it fails... at which point there is no recourse. In a perverse sense, its accuracy can be a drawback, because if the false positive rate low enough, nobody is going to believe you when you're falsely accused. And people will be falsely accused.
I think it's ironic that it seems like it capitalizes on the same flaw that most LLM-posting does... "Chat GPT is usually right, I'm going with it." You shouldn't post an LLM article without independently validating its claims, so that there is a responsible person in the loop. The same is true for rejections and accusations, but more so, because they're more damaging.
- "The reallocations were real, but they were never the bottleneck."
- "Note that the villain is not the branch itself. It is the branch that [..]"
- "Same million floats. Same threshold. Same function."
- "Notice the price we paid though."