[smallerfish]

> I dropped eleven LLMs into a 2D battle royale and made them play 30 games. One won 43% of the matches. Three never won a single game. The cheapest model in the lineup beat the most expensive one by 27x on cost per win.

Please learn how to write with AI without giving away that it was written by AI.

[NeutralCrane]

What about that makes you think it was written by AI?

[royal__]

Since you asked...I've gone to the effort to pull out the parts of the article that I think show it:

"That’s the part most benchmarks can’t see, and it’s what this post is about." Classic "it's not x, it's x", shows up in various forms throughout the article.

"To me, this is the most fascinating finding from this entire experiment - we saw very clear alignment tax being paid by certain models, which directly impacted their performance in this zero-sum game." - Usage of em dash. Now, yes, there's nothing wrong with using em dashes. But this feels like a weird place to use one. Also I counted at least 6 other emdashes in this article. Most people do not use em dashes that often.

"and a memory system that kept doubling down on what worked without second-guessing or doubting itself." - Doubling down is a classic Claudism.

"I want to be careful here..." - "wanting to be careful here" is another classic Claudism.

"The same game world, completely different results when in a different “task”." - "same X, completely different X" is another common one from Claude, as proofed by the repeated pattern later down: "These models were all given the same rules, same game world, and same tools, but each of them approached the game on a personality-level that is completely different from each other."

"It begs the question" - author used this twice in the article.

I'm guessing the author wrote a draft and then had Claude spruce it up a lot. I could be wrong and I'd be happy to be proven otherwise.

[inigyou]

None of these feel AI to me. Phrases like "what this post is about" feel like anti-AIisms.

[verall]

All of the normal AI tells plus it's very long yet nearly incoherent.

Really I use the AI every damn day at work I don't get how people can't recognize instantly if something is completely AI, AI with light proofreading, or human written.

I would call this as AI with very light proofreading.

[computerex]

I think you are going by vibes.

[Ifkaluva]

The style is very obvious.

Some snippets that display classic patterns:

“ Both of those things are true. That’s the part most benchmarks can’t see,”

“And it’s changing how I” (classic pattern found in a lot of LinkedIn AIslop)

“ I want to be careful here.”

“ The stats are the stats. The moments are the part I kept showing people. ”

[skeledrew]

I write like this sometimes.

[computerex]

How do you know this is written by AI? Why does it matter if it is?

[FeteCommuniste]

If you're outsourcing your writing to AI, I assume you're outsourcing your thinking to it as well. And I don't really care what some weighted average of all human text written on the topic "thinks."

[smallerfish]

I'm OP in the thread and I don't agree with this.

AI writing is fine, but you can't just stop on the first draft, any more than you can while AI coding (in fact, even less so - your coding is read by computers and to an extent either works or doesn't; your writing is for humans, and not only needs to convey ideas but also needs to hold the reader.)

Shipping an unedited draft is lazy. Advertising and SEO filler that nobody will ever read can maybe get away with it, but if you're writing for humans, _READ_ the output critically and edit.

[computerex]

Your argument is basically ad hominem. Ideas should be evaluated on merit.

[FeteCommuniste]

The "writing part" is not neatly separable from the "ideas part," much as AI-writing defenders would like to pretend so.

[computerex]

My argument is that randomly accusing something of being AI and pretending that it's bad merely because you think it's AI, is not good/good faith. Whether you think some writing is AI or not is besides the point. If the writing sucks, explain why. Not everyone shares your position that if something is written by AI it's automatically bad.

And for the record, you can have a lengthy conversation with an AI to communicate your ideas and then use the AI to draft the message. It'll have AI tells in it, but so what?

[inigyou]

"experiment hate exempt sentence electronics club suggest perforate communist surround eagle X-ray consensus forecast cancel beam knowledge operation workshop recording earthwax bland"

"That's literally just the output from a random word picker."

"Don't engage with the mechanism of production! Engage with the content! If it's bad, explain how it's bad! Not everyone believes the output of a random word picker is automatically bad!"