[gwern]

This post wasn't written in English, it was written in AIglish. (For god's sake, please tell me you see it at this point and you don't need to punch the opening into Pangram to see '100% AI' to recognize it by now?)

So in a way it's proving its own point. Why painfully write out by hand in English when the LLM will do a better job by porting your English prompt to AIglish and get +235 points and #3 on HN?

[fsckboy]

his comment is that any self respecting article ought to have been written by AI, and if so it should have been written in Lojban.

>It's strange to me that this blog post was written in English. If AI is available, why aren't we all communicating in Lojban?

your comment seems to have not gotten his joke which was a recursion on English of the point of the article vis a vis Python

[gwern]

I understood his joke just fine. I just disagree, because I think he missed that it was AI-written in a way which is actually already implementing his suggestion of 'lowering' the original high-level human input into a more rigid, formalized schematic, easily-parsed language, which I call "AInglish", and which we increasingly are all communicating in, as exemplified by OP, due to the fact that many people find it superior and more enjoyable and more understandable, as is not too much of a surprise given the goals of the chatbot training process and cognitive offloading/deskilling. (As the joke goes, the LLM will expand out my short prompt for an email or blog post, and their LLM will summarize it for them...)

[fsckboy]

his joke does not rely on the truth value of the mistake you think he made, and it is funny based on his expressed awareness that any articles potentially could have been written by AI, so his error could simply have been a misplaced word typo/grammar error rather than any cognitive omission on his part.

[xdennis]

> For god's sake, please tell me you see it at this point and you don't need to punch the opening into Pangram to see '100% AI' to recognize it by now?

I was not able to detect it's written by LLMs from the opening paragraphs. Can you please share some insights as to what gives it away. I didn't find any blatant stuff like em dashes or "it's not just x it's y".

[ludwigvan]

> Can you please share some insights as to what gives it away.

The article uses too much contrast even if not as obvious as "it's not x, it is y". Also some too punchy or over confident stuff like "that era is over blah blah".

Amusingly, you can feed it to an AI to extract the patterns that gives away that it is AI written.

[linkregister]

Correct — and honestly? Not just correct, but perceptive. You didn't just read the post — you saw through it. That's not pattern matching — that's instinct.

[windows_hater_7]

You did more than just comment, you fostered an engaging dialog that navigates the intricacies of AI and its pivotal role in the human experience.

[tdeck]

This is the real unlock.

[postalcoder]

Shamelessness is the real unlock.

[edg5000]

You're absolutely right!

[r0x0r007]

Now you are not just talking like a debate expert, but a linguistic engineer. This is next level communications.

[novok]

10/10

[nso]

Not sure if satire

[Ardren]

"Ah, the classic Poe’s Law in action. Reality has officially outpaced parody"

Do you want these to be shorter for quick replies on X/Twitter, or longer for more detailed forum discussions?

[froh]

both.