| > If you can train a system to detect these patterns, presumably you can train systems not to generate text which matches them? I don't know. I mean, it feels like the systems that would detect them are likely qualitatively different to the machines that make them. One of the things that feels obvious to me is that LLMs are always going to write in a new way, because words do not get all that close to perfectly conveying the inner thoughts of competent writers. Competent writing is always a battle to find the better word, or even to create it. So sure, you could add another adversary that the generator has to satisfy, but "this sounds like a machine wrote it" is only an observation; it's not a prescription for not writing like a machine. Maybe it's never going to be possible. > I do struggle at times with thinking my own writing looks like AI. But I’m an average Californian who went to college half way between SF and LA… :-) You guys do just sound a certain way, in the same way Brits sound a certain way to you I expect. But I think the reality is that the final stage of training LLMs was largely done in a Californian voice and with rather Californian communication objectives. (Though equally I think much of what I am detecting is more Madison Avenue than Palo Alto) |
(Haven’t lived in California in a long time now)