Fwiw I’m >9:1 confident that I’m Kenyan. I Don’t Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me is written with substantial AI assistance. It gets 100% on Pangram and the tone and rhythm just seems way too AI-like. Maybe you’re like “oh doesn’t that just prove his point? But no.
As some points of comparison, your comment doesn’t read that way at all. Neither does his essays from 2021 and earlier. Maybe you’re like, argumentative styles are different from his usual fare? But I asked Claude to come up with some Kenyan essays from that time period that has this ChatGPT rhythm and Claude was unable to[1]. If his argument was actually correct, you’d expect way more pre-2022 Kenyan writers to sound the way he describes.
EDIT: The biggest reason I could imagine being wrong (and I don’t think this is likely), which is why I’m not at >>99:1, is if he intentionally wrote in an extremely LLM-y way as performance art. I think that’s theoretically possible albeit very hard for such a long essay[2]. But if so that’s also a very different performance/meta-point than the object level points he was making!
Claude thought this sounded AI-y: https://sunwords.com/2019/04/28/i-am-here-to-compete-for-your-attention/ I disagree strongly, as does Pangram. It does have some surface features like em-dashes, but other than that the tempo is very different from AI (and also different from Western blogs/essays I usually read in a way that’s hard to articulate).
I had a few sentences like that here, but it’s very hard to actually sustain a fully AI-slop voice while trying to distinguish yourself as clever and not actually using AI to sophisticated readers. Even dropping the second constraint, I think I’d have a lot of trouble writing the entire story in that style without any AI assistance. Pangram, naturally, flags. my essay as 100% human.
Yes, tbc all his old stuff and several other online Kenyan essayists from 2019 and before I tested got 0% on Pangram, while all his new stuff gets 100% except for, oddly enough, the latest article[1].
But also even if you don’t trust Pangram[2], you can read it yourself and get a sense. I don’t think the AI usage is subtle here.
Fwiw reading it I think this is a false negative on Pangram. I’m not certain here but the cadence feels LLM-y in a way that is maybe harder for the models to pick up on.
I do trust Pangram, more than my own eyes. I focus on content more than form ;) so don’t have the AI writing detectors many do.
So I’m confused. I trust Pangram so much I suspect it’s not a false negative, and that he’s right about ChatGPT writing like he was taught to, but also using ChatGPT and perhaps defending and deflecting with that claim.
Still not sure it matters. Content over form. Ad machina is valid but weak.
(nothing to say other than that I rarely give comments that counterargue a heartfelt take of mine 3 +ve valence emojis; I just really like your comment, thanks)
Fwiw I’m >9:1 confident that I’m Kenyan. I Don’t Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me is written with substantial AI assistance. It gets 100% on Pangram and the tone and rhythm just seems way too AI-like. Maybe you’re like “oh doesn’t that just prove his point? But no.
As some points of comparison, your comment doesn’t read that way at all. Neither does his essays from 2021 and earlier. Maybe you’re like, argumentative styles are different from his usual fare? But I asked Claude to come up with some Kenyan essays from that time period that has this ChatGPT rhythm and Claude was unable to[1]. If his argument was actually correct, you’d expect way more pre-2022 Kenyan writers to sound the way he describes.
EDIT: The biggest reason I could imagine being wrong (and I don’t think this is likely), which is why I’m not at >>99:1, is if he intentionally wrote in an extremely LLM-y way as performance art. I think that’s theoretically possible albeit very hard for such a long essay[2]. But if so that’s also a very different performance/meta-point than the object level points he was making!
Claude thought this sounded AI-y: https://sunwords.com/2019/04/28/i-am-here-to-compete-for-your-attention/ I disagree strongly, as does Pangram. It does have some surface features like em-dashes, but other than that the tempo is very different from AI (and also different from Western blogs/essays I usually read in a way that’s hard to articulate).
I had a few sentences like that here, but it’s very hard to actually sustain a fully AI-slop voice while trying to distinguish yourself as clever and not actually using AI to sophisticated readers. Even dropping the second constraint, I think I’d have a lot of trouble writing the entire story in that style without any AI assistance. Pangram, naturally, flags. my essay as 100% human.
So you ran Pangram on his old stuff and other writing from similarly educated people and it didn’t read as mostly AI?
I’m sure he wrote this more like an LLM; this would happen accidentally if that’s the topic and claim on his mind, and why not do it on purpose?
Yes, tbc all his old stuff and several other online Kenyan essayists from 2019 and before I tested got 0% on Pangram, while all his new stuff gets 100% except for, oddly enough, the latest article[1].
But also even if you don’t trust Pangram[2], you can read it yourself and get a sense. I don’t think the AI usage is subtle here.
Fwiw reading it I think this is a false negative on Pangram. I’m not certain here but the cadence feels LLM-y in a way that is maybe harder for the models to pick up on.
Which is a mistake
I do trust Pangram, more than my own eyes. I focus on content more than form ;) so don’t have the AI writing detectors many do.
So I’m confused. I trust Pangram so much I suspect it’s not a false negative, and that he’s right about ChatGPT writing like he was taught to, but also using ChatGPT and perhaps defending and deflecting with that claim.
Still not sure it matters. Content over form. Ad machina is valid but weak.
(nothing to say other than that I rarely give comments that counterargue a heartfelt take of mine 3 +ve valence emojis; I just really like your comment, thanks)