https://www.pangram.com/history/c3ad864f-2a50-4785-a0ef-71f2...
why not use your own words? If you are gonna ai generate this blog, just post the prompts instead.
why not use your own words? If you are gonna ai generate this blog, just post the prompts instead.
Most people do not, in fact, want to read raw prompts.
> This blog is where I write about what I find.
Why not simply include a disclaimer that it was AI model output not his own writing? Because humans don’t like AI writing and the article wouldn’t be featured on as many tech news sites. Hence the sin of omission, the choice to mislead.
> Most people do not, in fact, want to read raw prompts.
I wonder if this is really true, and if it will remain true for long. Have you observed someone read another person’s raw prompt? Or observed someone submit both their prompts and their LLM output for review?
Personally I’d be curious about the prompts for a lot of top HN articles which are LLM-generated. It would say a lot more about the human operator’s intent and thinking process compared to the LLM output.
A coworker who spoke English as a second language once screen shared their Claude session during a code review, and it was interesting that their prompts were all in their native language. The guy wasn’t writing an article, and I didn’t understand the prompt anyway, but I still found it interesting as a glimpse into how he uses LLMs.
For this particular article, if the prompt was initially a series of bullet points that wouldn’t be so bad. If there were multiple prompts spent editing and rearranging the article that would be an unusual work by pre-LLM standards. However I’d suggest that instead of dismissing the idea, we could embrace “raw prompts” as a kind of new medium, to cross the divide between pro-LLM and anti-LLM readers.
I also wonder what is the energy consumptiom difference between the prompt and fetching website.
I seriously doubt that.
First, the author documented a substantial effort (testing, emails, references to documentation.)
Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not.
> Broken sentences that a model wouldn't produce. "The value is while you are on ChatGPT and tied to your ChatGPT account" is missing a word. "Loading that code, sends __obi to OpenAI" has a comma splitting subject from verb. "By the virtue of loading the tag the identifier is disclosed" is non-idiomatic. LLMs are fluent to a fault; these are the fingerprints of a fast human writer, possibly a non-native English speaker.
Third, I read it. Whilst it is not well written, it is succinct. It is novel. It has a few detailed references. It lacks many of the hallmarks of AI. It makes a number of novel yet falsifiable claims.
I challenge you to come up with a blog post with these qualities that can be created in under 15 minutes via AI.
While I commend you on actually using an AI tool to validate your assumption, rather than simply hurling AI slop accusations based purely on vibes, I do think you and your AI tool are likely incorrect.
This is an artificial constraint that does not serve the reader. Where did the 15 minute constraint come from?
How long do you estimate it took him to read the article?
every day I'm more and more reminded that the level of intelligence of the average human even on hn is so low that it makes sense why LLMs took over so hard. Asking an LLM like an oracle as if it could naturally distinguish between LLM writing and human writing.. it's a statistical likelihood next token predictor. LLMs can't even play chess without constantly making illegal moves. They are not intelligent.. and unfortunately, I have bad news for you: neither are you.
Why would anyone want that?
Note to folks who have this same thought (seems like many given other comments). Why are you on this site if you aren't here for human-created content? If you want AI generated blogs/posts there are plenty of sites like linkedin, twitter, chatgpt, and claude that will give you meaningless content with a press of a button.
AI content is typically lower quality, but I'm not opposed to AI-aided content just on the principle of the thing?
At least criticise the article on merit and not some 'let me google that for you' high horse. If it's slop it's slop, but let the votes speak for that.
This sentence is way too much detail and it's literally the first thing you read. I can pick apart most of the sentences in the article. Another one:
> Across 932 decoded sync tokens, 736 carried subject_type: account_user and 196 carried anonymous
This sentence is pointless. What matters to proving that "It works when you are logged out" is to show that the identifier is stable. Why does the reader care about the actual counts.
AI has a tendency to do this which makes AI generated text a lot harder to read. The raw prompts likely don't have the specific websites and cookie names because that's not relevant to the reader or writer for that matter - it's a footnote at best.
Like I say, slop is slop. It's easy to detect. This post and the OP's actual website is basically just a few AI blog posts. I would just treat it as spam and disengage.
> let the votes speak for that.
The comment you are replying to got a fair number of votes too… Having somebody run a Pangram check saves n people the trouble of doing the same.
I think you have to take the output as read and decide accordingly. If it looks like low effort AI writing then it's not much better than spam.
I think the the top-voted post being all about the provenance of the article says something about where HN's voting mentality lies - we are not prioritising the substance of the post but how it was produced.