Thread

Too AI; Didn't Read

111 points · 113 comments · rfonseca

lemontheme · 1790370169 · focus · HN ↗
If it’s not worth writing, it’s not worth reading.
That said, wouldn’t it be funny if this site, too, were AI generated?
1. bonoboTP · 1790370880 · focus · HN ↗
  The other similar site making the rounds, <a href="https://noslopgrenade.com/" rel="nofollow">https://noslopgrenade.com/, is indeed in part written by AI as evaluated by Pangram.
  1. breezybottom · 1790371845 · focus · HN ↗
    AI detectors are useless. I don't know how this forum got so infected with Pangram shills, but at this point they need to be banned.
    E-Reverance · 1790372074 · focus · HN ↗
    Apart from their own data, a lot of people's anecdotal experience is that its pretty accurate, why would they need to banned for that?
    bonoboTP · 1790372396 · focus · HN ↗
    This is an outdated take. It used to be the case, but now detectors have low false positive rates. In other words good precision but not necessarily good recall for detecting AI. So some AI text evades detection, but when it flags something as AI, then it's usually right.
    breezybottom · 1790536702 · focus · HN ↗
    No, it's not. The only way it could is through watermarking, and even then you need a substantial amount of text for that to be reliable.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.