This site has gone full Tower of Babel. I've seen at least a thousand "AI comment" callouts on this site in the last month and at this point I'm pretty sure 99% of them are wrong.
In fact, can someone link me to a disputed comment that the consensus ends up being it's actually AI? I don't think I've seen one.
You know how the chicken sexers do their thing, but can't explain it? Like they can't write a list of things they check for. And when they want to train new people they have them watch (apprentice style) the current ones, and eventually they also become good at doing it themselves?
It's basically that. I can't explain it (I tried listing the tells in a comment below), but it's not just a list of things you notice. You notice the whole message, the cadence, the phrases that "add nothing". You play with enough models, you see enough generations and you start to "see it".
If you'd like to check for yourself, check that user's comment history. It will become apparent after a few messages. They all have these tells. I don't know how else to explain it, but it's there.
Yeah on a second look GP might actually be on to something here. Jackfranklyn only makes top level comments, never dialogs with anyone, and I count at least 3 instances of "as someone who does this for a living" that are too seperated in scope to be plausibly realistic.
You might notice I wasn't responding to your specific claim about a particular comment but to a later post by a different poster commenting on a wider phenomenon. Perhaps stop trying so hard to insert the idea you want to argue against into posts where it doesn't actually exist just so you can have something to argue about. (Especially given there are many direct responses to your post actually arguing with your claim that you could instead argue with.)
The tells are in the cadence. And the not x but y. And the last line that basically says nothing, while using big words. It's like "In conclusion", but worded differently. Enough tells for me to click on their history. They have the exact same cadence on every comment. It's a bit more sophisticated than "chatgpt write a reply", but it's still 100% aigen. Check it out, you'll see it after a few messages in their history.
No, it doesn't. The "I'm an expert at AI detection" crowd likes to cite things like "It's not X, it's Y" and other expression patterns without stopping to think that perhaps LLMs regurgitate those patterns because they are frequently used in written speech.
I assign a <5% probability that GP comment was AI written. It's easy to tell, because AI writing has no soul.
The message is 100% AI written. And if you click on their username and check their comment history you'll see that ALL their comments are "identical". Just do it, you'll see it by the 5th message. No one talks like that. No one talks like that on every message.
Exactly, if a comment just feels a little off but you're unsure, do a quick scan of the profile, takes 15-30 seconds at most to get sufficient signal.
If it's actually AI, the pattern becomes extremely obvious reading them back-to-back. If no clear pattern, I'll happily give them the benefit of the doubt at that point. I don't particularly care if someone occasionally cleans up a post with an LLM as long as there is a real person driving it and it's not overused.
The other day on Reddit I saw a post in r/sysadmin that absolutely screamed karma farming AI and it was really depressing seeing a bunch of people defending them as the victim of an anti-AI mob without noticing the entire profile was variations of generic "Does anyone else dislike [Tool X], am I alone? [generic filler] What does everyone else think?" posts.
Looking at their profile I'm inclined to agree. But I think in isolation, this one post isn't setting off enough red flags for me. At the very least, they aren't just using default prompts.
I think at this point it's not easy to accurately detect whether or not something is AI written. A real person can definitely write like this. In fact, that's probably where the LLMs got their writing style from.
