←back to thread

Glubux's Powerwall (2016)

(secondlifestorage.com)
386 points bentobean | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source
Show context
Kaytaro ◴[] No.43550650[source]
The 2nd quote is when I realized this article was written or assisted by AI. Not that it's a big deal, that's our world now. But it's interesting to notice the subtle 'accent' that gives it away.
replies(5): >>43550687 #>>43550692 #>>43550882 #>>43551747 #>>43552109 #
dartos ◴[] No.43550687[source]
What about it gives off the AI smell to you?
replies(3): >>43550700 #>>43551005 #>>43551290 #
endtime ◴[] No.43550700[source]
Nice try, ChatGPT.

More seriously, for me it's the "likely".

replies(1): >>43550717 #
ziddoap ◴[] No.43550717[source]
Using "likely" is indicative of AI now...?

Absurd.

The only thing as annoying as people using AI and passing it off as their own writing is the people who claim everything written not exactly how they are used to is AI.

replies(3): >>43550793 #>>43551020 #>>43551062 #
cyral ◴[] No.43550793[source]
> This task, which likely required a great deal of manual labor and technical knowledge, was key to making the system work effectively and sustainably.

This is obviously AI. The writer should know that it either required manual labor or it did not, not maybe (AI loves to not "commit" to an answer and rather say maybe/likely). It also loves to loop in some vague claim about X being effective, sustainable, ethical, etc without providing any information as to WHY it is.

That and it being published on some blog spam website called techoreon.

Edit: For fun, I had o1-mini produce an article from the original source (Techspot it looks like), and it produced a similar line:

> This ingenious approach likely required significant manual effort and technical expertise, but the results speak for themselves, as evidenced by the system's eight-year flawless operation.

What these sites are doing is rewriting articles from legitimate sources, and then selling SEO backlinks to their "news" website full of generated content (and worthless backlinks). It's how all those scammy fiverr link services work

replies(5): >>43550936 #>>43550944 #>>43551036 #>>43551221 #>>43551358 #
ziddoap ◴[] No.43550936[source]
At least this is a better effort at explaining why you would believe it is AI than the other poster who just says it's AI because they used the word "likely".

I still find it very annoying that in every thread about a blog post there's someone shouting "AI!" because there's an em dash, bullet points, or some common word/saying (e.g. "likely", "crucially", "in conclusion"). It's been more intrusive on my life than actual AI writing has been.

I've been accused of using AI for writing because I have used parenthesis, ellipses, various common words, because I structured a post with bullet points and a conclusion section, etc. It's wildly frustrating.

replies(3): >>43551132 #>>43551317 #>>43551615 #
1. cyral ◴[] No.43551132[source]
> because I structured a post with bullet points and a conclusion section

I do understand that this is frustrating, because in the last few months I see posts with these features everywhere. It's especially a problem on reddit, where there are numerous low effort posts in niche subreddits that are overdone with emojis, bolded sections/titles, and em dashes. Not all of these are AI but an overwhelming majority are to the point where if the quality of the content is low (lots of vague sayings), and it exhibits these traits, I can almost say for certain it's AI.

What is also less talked about is now AI models are beginning to write without exhibiting these issues. I've been playing around with GPT 4o and it's deep research feature writes articles that are extremely well written, not exhibiting the traits above or classic telltale AI signs. I also had a friend ask it to write a fictional passage on a character description and the writing was impeccable (which is depressing because it was better than what she wrote). Soon we are not going to have any clue what is real and what isn't.

replies(2): >>43551437 #>>43551635 #
2. fragmede ◴[] No.43551437[source]
The kids ask ChatGPT to rewrite it using the diction of a 9 year old, so it doesn't look like it was AI generated. If you have a big enough corpus of writing, you could use yourself as the input style to emulate. Unfortunately I think we're going to has get over generated vs not as the technology improves. we'll have to judge a work based on its own merits and not use any tells. Quelle horrer!
3. ziddoap ◴[] No.43551635[source]
>What is also less talked about is now AI models are beginning to write without exhibiting these issues.

It will be great when I continue to write the way I have for decades, continuing to be accused of being AI, while actual AI writing exceeds my ability and isn't accused of being AI.

Get me off this ride.