the image linked to by the post is the Pangram LLM-detection report of paragraphs in the first screenshot below, reading “100% AI”. in lieu of alt text for the screenshots below, I suggest scrolling through @[email protected]’s profile and https://lemmy.world/comment/26323310, which the screenshots are of. Look at the vote counts.
Why should I take that piece of AI detection software at its word? I looked at that user’s comment history and, while admitting I am not an expert on it, do not see any obvious signs of AI. If that’s AI, mission fucking accomplished.
The writing is pretty clearly AI to me. I can point out some reasons but they’ll be easy to nitpick; it’s a holistic thing.
I often think about that exact, particular, specific comic lately… for some reason! 🤔 😞
That said, OP said elsewhere:
So if the account in question mimics a human exclusively in order to spread spam about particular websites that they are paid to promote as “authentically”-looking as possible, then I would argue that the mission is not “fucking accomplished”. Or rather, at least not our mission of being able to converse with fellow humans, possibly with the assistance of the occasional bot so long as they are properly labeled as such and not trying to manipulate and scam us.
A properly labeled bot - e.g. that posts daily comics - is a great tool (even if some people choose to opt-out of such, which is their right). It’s the deception that people do not like (mainly).
Reviewing @[email protected]’s comment history, they do appear to use ‘it’s not X, it’s Y’—something ChatGPT is known for—unusually often.
pot, kettle.
Check my comment history and you’ll see that I’m a big fan of em dashes (typically to prevent run-on sentences, clarify a point, or where someone else might use parentheses, like this) but very anti-AI.
I’ve never generated anything in any of my comments with AI and I have no intention of doing so.
The point was on the complaining about AI because of trends in how humans write (which is where AI got it from in the first place) when quite visibly using those same trends, but sure, why not.
the em dash is just one tick. eicker has at least five of those to the point where it’s embedded into the logical flow of the argument and the sentence structure
Don’t need an AI to notice that.
I didn’t use an AI to notice that? Just checked their past comments.
they always end the comment with some sort of wry contrast.
I do not consider this kind of preaching to the choir constructive at all: it oversimplifies any nuance in articles posted into building the echo chamber. what’s constructive for discussion should be what challenges!