[lelanthran]

> A human should not have to or be compelled to prove to be human. The onus of proof here is the wrong way around, the premise fundamentally incorrect.

Innocent until proven guilty is for a court.

Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness. Since so few humans ever wrote like the way LLMs default to, it's not unreasonable to refuse serious engagement with a party exhibiting this.

Aside: Every time someone claims they have always written like this, I ask for a link to their writing dated pre-2022, and send both to all free LLM chatbots with the question "did the same writer write both these pieces".

I have not yet gotten a "likely", or even a "remotely likely". It's all been "extremely unlikely".

[carlosjobim]

> Outside of a court, people use all sorts of heuristics to determine authenticity and trustworthiness.

And all of those are a fools errand, except meeting people face to face. Meeting somebody IRL it takes just a few minutes to know if they are trustworthy or not.

If the business is severely serious, then you have to do like Genghis Khan and get fully drunk together. Anybody who refuses can never be fully trusted.

[lelanthran]

> And all of those are a fools errand, except meeting people face to face.

I agree, and that works for IRL only!

But what I am seeing online is a very large push for people to stop calling out obvious LLM prose. One can only guess at the motivations from people who are throwing tantrums that their LLM prose should be allowed, because it's their idea being discussed.

What I am not seeing is them acknowledging the extreme disrespected they are demonstrating for a community when they cannot even bother to type "their" idea.

IOW, if someone doesn't have the time to write it, then we should be making fun of them, shaming them and generally mocking them for losing the use of their brain in a public setting.

[sscaryterry]

I'm really talking about social dynamics here, not what is legal or not. I'm suggesting that putting in these type of "checks" contribute not alleviate the problem.