[refulgentis]

> the main problem is you can't really ever tell with a high degree of certainty

This is false, it is trivial to find humans with 99%+ accuracy[1] and there is a well-known service with 99%+ accuracy when analyzed by 3rd parties with no affiliation.[2]

> people are just guessing based on what they see in an unscientific way

As we see above, this is just guessing in an unscientific way. :) It's important to be rational! We all agree on that. :)

FWIW it did used to be true that the 3rd party services were junk. And I don't support the idea of humans just winging it when there's consequences. The case we're in is about the most mundane and consequence-free, the vast majority of us use AI daily and we're commenting on an internet aggregator that is aggregating a blog article.

[1] People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text - https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.267/

[2] Artificial Writing and Automated Detection” - https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-aut...

[ranger_danger]

> This is false, it is trivial to find humans with 99%+ accuracy

Sorry but no, this is also false. AI is largely trained on human data. What it outputs is also largely what a human would output. We could both easily make up the exact same sentences (especially smaller ones) and there is NO way to tell what the real source of a sentence is, especially considering the source can be multiple things (AI and human) at the same time!

There is no amount of literature you could provide or anything you can do or say that would change my mind on this.

[drdexebtjl]

Humans can write these tropes individually. But we usually don’t write them one after the other over the course of the entire text.

We have our own personal biases towards certain words and sentence structures that don’t match the same biases that post-training favors. We speak egoistically how we want to speak, not necessarily how the listener wants to hear.

We don’t polish every sentence, because not every sentence needs polish.

If a human wrote like this, I would be concerned that they’re spending too much effort into making me feel or thing something, and not enough effort into expressing their own thoughts and emotions. I would be concerned that they’re spending way too much effort into writing blog posts, and not enough effort thinking about the topic they’re writing about. I wouldn’t want to read that either.

[bluebarbet]

You rather undermine your point (with which I agree) in that last sentence!

[refulgentis]

I understand nothing anyone says can ever convince you anything was written by AI. Not much I can say from there. shrugs So I'll just thought dump.

I don't come from much and this reminds me of the rich girl who wondered how anyone could ever tell if anything is true ever in english class last year of high school. Real formative moment for me. It sounds debilitating, but at the very least comparatively to her, people acting like there's no such thing as certainty unless its 100%, and there's no sense in weighing things, allowed me to climb past them without paying the same tolls or having the same advantages.

(for those looking at rationality:

>> This is false, it is trivial to find humans with 99%+ accuracy [link]

> Sorry but no, this is also false...there is no amount of literature you could provide or anything you can do or say that would change my mind on this.

I have science, they have a tortured counter about the nature of certainty that belongs in freshman philosophy class, as it would obviate any discussion of anything ever)