←back to thread

931 points sohzm | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
litexlang ◴[] No.44460699[source]
Sorry for your story. In those days open source is REALLY HARD. Put your github link here and we will support your project by starring you and spreading your project. You definitely need to fight back.
replies(2): >>44460743 #>>44460754 #
npsomaratna ◴[] No.44460754[source]
Not the developer, but here is his repo:

https://github.com/sohzm/cheating-daddy

replies(2): >>44460803 #>>44462376 #
dheerajvs ◴[] No.44462376[source]
As an interviewer, I'm seeing a huge increase in proportion of candidates cheating surreptitiously during video interviews. And it's becoming difficult to suspect any wrong-doing unless you're very watchful by looking for academic responses to questions.

Why would anyone encourage building such a tool, I can't fathom.

replies(11): >>44462519 #>>44462688 #>>44462727 #>>44462929 #>>44463152 #>>44463158 #>>44463655 #>>44465775 #>>44465827 #>>44465880 #>>44467024 #
1. pxc ◴[] No.44465827[source]
> unless you're very watchful by looking for academic responses to questions

I've noticed that a lot of the supposed hallmarks of "AI slop writing" (em-dashes, certain multisyllabic words, frequent use of metaphor) are also just hallmarks of professional and academic writing. (It's true that some of them are clichés, of course.)

It seems like most efforts to instruct people on how to "fight back against AI writing" effectively instruct them to punish highly literate people as well.

I think it's often still possible to tell human writing that uses some of the same tropes or vocabulary apart from AI writing, but it's very vibes-based. I've yet to see specific guidance or characterizations of AI writing that won't also flag journalists, academics, and many random geeks.