the image linked to by the post is the Pangram LLM-detection report of paragraphs in the first screenshot below, reading “100% AI”. in lieu of alt text for the screenshots below, I suggest scrolling through @eicker@lemmy.world’s profile and https://lemmy.world/comment/26323310, which the screenshots are of. Look at the vote counts.
Why should I take that piece of AI detection software at its word? I looked at that user’s comment history and, while admitting I am not an expert on it, do not see any obvious signs of AI. If that’s AI, mission fucking accomplished.
Reviewing @eicker@lemmy.world’s comment history, they do appear to use ‘it’s not X, it’s Y’—something ChatGPT is known for—unusually often.
Don’t need an AI to notice that.
I didn’t use an AI to notice that? Just checked their past comments.
pot, kettle.
Check my comment history and you’ll see that I’m a big fan of em dashes (typically to prevent run-on sentences, clarify a point, or where someone else might use parentheses, like this) but very anti-AI.
I’ve never generated anything in any of my comments with AI and I have no intention of doing so.
The point was on the complaining about AI because of trends in how humans write (which is where AI got it from in the first place) when quite visibly using those same trends, but sure, why not.
they always end the comment with some sort of wry contrast.
I do not consider this kind of preaching to the choir constructive at all: it oversimplifies any nuance in articles posted into building the echo chamber. what’s constructive for discussion should be what challenges!