[joemi]

I think relying on the vocabulary to indicate AI is pointless (unless they're actually using words that AI made up). There's a reason they use words such as those you've pointed out: because they're words, and their training material (a.k.a. output by humans) use them.

[astrange]

No American used "delve" before ChatGPT 3.5, and nobody outside fanfiction uses the metaphors it does (which are always about "secrets" "quiet" "humming" "whispers" etc). It's really very noticeable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/03/magazine/chatbot-writing-...

[joemi]

The link you posted doesn't back up the statement that "No American used "delve" before ChatGPT 3.5". Instead it states that _few_ people used it in _biomedical papers_. I've seen it (and metaphors using the other words you noted) used in fiction for my entire life, and I sure as hell predate chatgpt. This is why it's a bad idea to consider every use of particular words to be AI generated. There are always some people who have larger vocabularies than others and use more words, including words some people have deemed giveaways of AI use.

That said, their use may raise suspicion of AI, but they are _not_ proof of AI. I don't want to live in a world where people with large vocabularies are not taken seriously. Such an anti-intellectual stance is extremely dangerous.

[astrange]

I've been reading deep research results every day for months now and I promise I know what AI writing style looks like.

It has nothing to do with "large vocabularies". I know who the people with large vocabularies were that originally caused the delving thing too, and they weren't American. (Mostly they were Nigerian.) I'm confused what you think specific kinds of metaphors involving sounds have to do with large vocabularies though.

> I've seen it (and metaphors using the other words you noted) used in fiction for my entire life

And the point is that this article isn't fiction. Or not supposed to be anyway.

[joemi]

People with large vocabularies tend to be heavy readers, and therefore experiencing these words and metaphors more than people with smaller vocabularies. I think there's a direct link between people attempting to use certain words as proof of AI and the fact the younger generations aren't reading as much as older generations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/us/high-school-english-te...

Somewhat contradictory, I don't think you can ignore fiction when discussing technical writing, since technical writing (especially online) has become far more casual (and influenced by conversation, pop culture, and yes, even fiction) than it ever was before. So while as I noted above, younger people are reading less these days, people are also less strict about how formal technical writing needs to be, so they may very well include words and expressions not commonly seen in that style of writing in the past.

I'm not arguing that these things can't be indicators of AI generation. I'm just arguing that they can't be proof of AI generation. And that argument only gets stronger as time goes on an more people are (sadly) influenced by things AI have generated.

[ashtonshears]

I bet the llm is biased towards the mtg card delver of secrets

[pests]

But now Americans do use "delve" since 3.5. So what? No Americans used "cromulent" as a word either until Simpsons invented it. Is it not a real word? Does using it mean the Simpsons wrote it?