[bensyverson]

Exactly this. For whatever reason, Claude likes to talk about the "shape" of "load-bearing" "seams," but if that's the internal jargon it needs to plan and execute its work, who am I to judge?

But if I'm reading what is supposed to be someone's original thoughts, it's a huge bummer to see an obvious AI tell. You might say that "it's not just disappointing—it's disrespectful."

[kokanee]

Hot take -- I'm glad that LLMs still tend to have recognizable communication patterns, because they're often the only clue I have to filter AI content.

[3uler]

Your tells, are just someone’s good writing now in the training set. It’ll be a moving target with each model.

I use the humanize skill to clean up AI written work before handing it over to colleagues.

https://github.com/blader/humanizer

[antihipocrat]

I agree, long may the 'its not x, not y, it's z' phrasing persist.

[ryandrake]

If the next generation of AI content produced no recognizable LLM patterns, and was indistinguishable from an actual human author, would you still care and try to determine whether the content was AI produced?

[seba_dos1]

Of course. The "content" is how humans communicate with each other, it doesn't just exist for its own sake (except in some degenerate cases). If you know that a human has authored it, you can infer their intent and thought-process from various choices they made across it. There's no such thing as intentional choices when the content is generated though.

[drgo]

I believe that the “thought process” of humans is just another automatic process albeit more sophisticated because it is running on a far more powerful processor that has evolved over millions of years and was honed by many more years of fine tuning in a complex social system. The difference is only a matter of degree.

[seba_dos1]

Sure, but there's so much more going on in a human than "a thought process running on a powerful processor" that current models do not even begin to approximate. We're not some brains steering meatmechs they're trapped in, we're complex machines consisting of interconnected systems running continuous processes with feedback loops that brains are only a single part of (and LLM-like processes in our brains are also only one of many things that happen in a brain). So-called "agents" are nowhere close to having actual agency yet. Once that changes, I may become actually interested in their outputs and opinions in other contexts than technical curiosities, but I'm not convinced that I'll still be around when that happens (if it even happens before we manage to make ourselves extinct anyway).

[staticman2]

The comment you replied to was making the point that when humans communicate the writing can reveal their thought processes. Outsource that to AI and that thought process is concealed.

This has almost nothing to do with your reply.

[phoghed]

I’ve asked essentially the same question many times to many people, the short answer is “yes” because it’s a matter of ideology not logic for them.

I get just as mad about shitty human output as I do about shitty LLM output. The bad thing about LLMs is that they have increased the volume of shit most people have to sift through.

When you open a requirements doc and it’s got 13 load bearing em dashes on the first page you known it’s gonna be bad day

[lpribis]

I would like to know if text is LLM generated even if I can't tell from the content itself. For me it's a matter of attention (hah) and a quality signal. The poster expects to spend a minimal amount of effort on the post, and all the readers will have to spend the same amount of attention whether its LLM generated or not.

To me, it's disrespectful to expect someone to waste their day reading every word of a blog post when even the author has not read every word. It shows that you value your time over your reader's time.

[kokanee]

I want to know when I'm consuming AI content because the source of information matters. I want to know what was at stake for the author, what motives they had and didn't have, what biases I should be aware of, and, for example, whether I'm reading content farmed slop that exists solely to attract ad impressions.

[phoghed]

You still won’t know even if it’s labeled though. Someone could put an incredible amount of effort into writing something, not be satisfied with some aspect, and have an LLM refactor it for example. Now you’ve got a lot of em dashes and you issue a shallow dismissal.

There was an HN submission recently where the author spent a lot of time and effort working with an LLM to write a story and get the LLM to follow a specific style and whatnot. Wish I could recall it offhand. Many commenters were very upset when they found out it was LLM generated, even though they couldn’t tell while reading it.

Basically what matters to me is some combo of how much effort went into it, and how accurate it is.

[XorNot]

In theory yes. But in practice if an AI made sweeping changes to typography then what are the odds any effort at all went into the rest?

[Dylan16807]

It causes problems to outsource core parts of your work to someone else, even without AI. So yeah I still care.

[rhet0rica]

I prefer a more tongue-in-cheek theory than a mere preference for the word's shape. Perhaps "load-bearing" is structurally necessary—if it is ablated, the whole model will collapse!

[mattjoyce]

The name for the phenomena could be Ananthropsis, noticing something is not from human

[hexasquid]

I googled that word and Anthropic.com was the first hit. Head -> desk

[allannienhuis]

Whenever I use AI generated content in direct communication - ie slack, email, jira tickets, etc, I always prefix any AI content with an obvious label: 'Claude says' or 'AI analysis: ' etc. In some cases I get claude to update jira tickets (really nice use case btw) with testing notes, I make sure the team knows that any notes in that format come from the AI based on the related commits.

I still keep the AI label even if I edit the result for correctness or clarity etc. The last thing I want to do is have someone read AI content and think it came directly from me. I really don't understand the thinking of people that do that - it's like they're hiding or intentionally cheating somehow.

AI generated content can be really, really useful (with some guidance, AI is way better at creating useful git commit messages and jira ticket comments than I am), but pretending that content is yours just seems way too much like straight up lying.