Hacker News Reader

Comment by missingpackage | Hacker News Reader

At first I thought about how many posts were written by AI

Most of the time things make sense in my head until someone points it out haha. I should have written it as "related to AI" or something like that.

I have mixed feelings about it, honestly. I may be biased because AI is my job but in my case specifically, when it comes to posting on social media AI really helps me communicating better what I'm trying to communicate without that feeling of i-forgot-to-write-that. If this makes sense . But I understand that people is probably overreacting because of the huge amount of nonsense stuff that is being posted nowadays by some people who really abuse it to farm visuals

Working also with AI on daily basis, coding, architecture, planning, I tend to agree with you, need to know how to use AI, need to know how to filter out the un-needed content. go to the AI when you already know what you want and at least high level knowledge of path. when asking it to code, know the architecture and choose a language you are familiar with. The bottom line is, you must lead the process. Come in with a clear goal and a high-level strategy be judgmental, AI accelerates output, but judgment is still your responsibility

Multiple times authors have been asked about AI usage on HN, because readers (rightfully) suspected it was AI written. I don't have a problem with AI written articles, or assisted.

But then the authors lie or make ludicrous excuses for why their article "sounds" like AI. Then I check with Pangram and yep. It is completely AI written.

You get a few free checks on Pangram each day or so. Just start checking and encourage people to be honest.

AI has its place. Lying about it and misrepresenting it makes everyone dislike AI more, even as they use it themselves.

> Then I check with Pangram and yep. It is completely AI written.

“AI detectors” do NOT work reliably.

Even humans who are ever-so-certain about being able to identify AI usage constantly embarrass themselves when that claimed ability is put to the test. Look up “AI Monet Instagram” for a social experiment where hundreds of cocksure users pointed out “AI signs” in what was claimed to be an AI-generated painting in the style of Monet, but was actually a genuine Monet.

Monet's often been classified as A Genius Impressionist, so arguably one step above A.I.

Yes, they do work.

Pass enough of someone's work through one, such as Pangram with a low FPR, and you can gain confidence.

Add in your own intuition plus multiple scans of someone's work, plus any weird claims they make, and you can raise the certainy bar.

There is room for error, but come on. To say they don't work at all and you can't combine multiple methods to come to reasonable conclusions?

I'll accept it is with fault. The problem could be alleviated if people just were honest about the use of generative AI usage and others didn't judge so harshly the use rather than the outcome.

I said at the start I don't care if it was used. I just want honesty.

Are you willing to take responsibility for accusations you make based on snake oil technology?

That is, if you claim that something posted by someone else is written by AI, and that turns out to not be the case, do you accept that others have the right to call you a liar and a fraud?

Or is it that when you say “I just want honesty”, you really mean “I just want to be able to throw around accusations of AI usage based on my hunches and a number displayed on a website”?

This reminds me of the Hank Green incident, when he said, "I appreciate the pushback". If you watch that 14 second clip, anyone who uses AI will notice that. But watching the whole video, the context makes sense. But that didn't matter to most folks who just heard those 14 seconds and assumed that he was reading an ai script with chat residue left inside.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com