Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Escapade5160 170 days ago
This article reads like 4o wrote it. It's so exhausting not being able to find content produced by a human being.
2 comments

Yeah it reads like it, and if a random AI detector (GPTZero) is to be believed it's pretty much all AI generated.

Crazy that nobody can be bothered to get rid of the obvious AI-isms "This isn't just for...", "The Challenges (And How We Handle Them)", "One PR. One review. One merge. Everything ships together." It's an immediate signal that whoever wrote this DGAF.

The obvious tell for me is when the article is packed full of 'Its not just x, it's y' statements. I am not sure why LLMs gravitated so heavily towards their current style of writing. Pre LLMs, I can't recall seeing that much written content in that format. If I did, it was in short form content.
I hadn't come across GPTZero before and wondered if it worked. Just testing on a sample of my blog posts (I do one each year) I got a 100% AI generated mark for a post in... 2022, and 2023. Both before AI tools were around.

Not to say this post isn't AI generated but you might want a better tool (if one exists)

Yeah, it's got a real issue with false positives. And I've tried a bunch of other tools (Sapling, ZeroGPT, a few others) and actually GPTZero was the best of the bunch. The others would miss obviously AI generated content that I'd just generated to test them.

I've had a blog post kicking around about this for a while, it's CRAZY how much more expensive AI detection is than AI generation.

In my mind content generated today with AI "tells" like the above and a general zero-calorie-feel that also trip an AI detector are very likely AI generated.

Hmm I'm curious which blog post tripped it? I tried a few from your site in 2023 and none of them were flagged as AI generated.
Pff the mental list of what I can’t use when I write is getting pretty big. Em dashes are done for, as are deep dives, delving, anything too enthusiastic, and Oxford commas…

A text either has value to you or it doesn’t. I don’t really understand what the level of AI involvement has to do with it. A human can produce slop, an AI can produce an insightful piece. I rely mostly on HN to tell them apart value-wise.

Did this not read as AI generated to you?
No, can’t say I noticed it. But I’m not a native English speaker. For me the AI transforms my poor Dunglish (Dutch-English) into perfect English. I do tell it to not sound like an American waiter though.
What's exhausting is seeing people complain about AI writing. What exactly are you looking for instead? A poorly written article?
Yes, we're looking for some other human sharing something interesting. There is no requirement to put things out into the world. So when somebody shares something to a discussion board like HN the hope is that if I'm going to spend my time reading it, they spent the time to write it. If I wanted to read an AI response I could just ask it "Tell me about how you could organize an entire business in a monorepo".
Or honesty about the author. If it's written by ChatGPT, say that. If I start to read an article with the expectation of it being written by a human, then see something like this, I instantly check out.

> Last week, I updated our pricing limits. One JSON file. The backend started enforcing the new caps, the frontend displayed them correctly, the marketing site showed them on the pricing page, and our docs reflected the change—all from a single commit.

If you ask an AI that question, it would tell you all the ways this is a bad idea, which isn't in this article (which is one of the reasons I think this wasn't written by AI, but just formatted by it)

Human articles on HN are largely shit. I would personally prefer to see either AI articles, or human articles by experts (which we get almost none of on HN)

Somehow I suspect this would be a nonissue if it easy to determine whether an article is written by AI or not.
Agreed. Especially when a lot of people just pick out x, y and z thing as if it's the definitive sign of AI, disregarding the possibility of it being normal outside of their own writing and what they read. Not to mention cultural differences. That certain characters or ways of structuring text have become more pervasive lately is a sign, yes, but it does not mean that the presence of it in a text is anything definitive towards the use of AI.

It's almost as if when you seek to find patterns, you'll find patterns, even if there are none. I think it'd benefit these kinds of people to remember the scientific "rule" of correlation does not equal causation and vice versa.