I don’t get the downvotes, I think it’s an important question to ask when I arises.
To me, finding undisclosed LLM text just is a very strong indicator the person publishing it wants to get away with sloppy work and doesn’t respect (the time and epistemic environment of) their readers very much. Clearly this doesn’t apply to every case, it’s just by far the most common occurrence, so by posting LLM text, you’re moving into a different reference class. The most likely scenario behind someone posting LLM text, purely on very general priors, is that they wrote a short prompt and got a slop response. If the person invested more effort into the interaction and has reason to believe their LLM text is of high quality and worth reading, then they should point out why (which involves being transparent about LLM usage in the first place).
I think I’d still have this preference if there was only a single LLM in existence which was both aligned and superintelligent. Text is supposed to have effects on readers, so being transparent about the nature of a text just seems like the right move.
To me, finding undisclosed LLM text just is a very strong indicator the person publishing it wants to get away with sloppy work and doesn’t respect (the time and epistemic environment of) their readers very much.
Yeah, that is exactly how I perceive it.
Even if you let the LLM generate the answer, the least you can do is tell it “be concise” or “give me a summary” or quote the relevant part instead of dumping the entire wall of text. If you don’t bother doing even that, that signals you clearly do not value my time.
Another thing: prompts matter. If you don’t share the prompt, I have no idea whether you asked your AI to “compare X and Y, evaluate pros and cons from various perspectives, and then make a conclusion” or “give me 7 reasons why X is better than Y”. The former is potentially helpful, the lattes is not. And the more AI-psychotic the person seems, the more likely I think it was the latter.
I don’t get the downvotes, I think it’s an important question to ask when I arises.
To me, finding undisclosed LLM text just is a very strong indicator the person publishing it wants to get away with sloppy work and doesn’t respect (the time and epistemic environment of) their readers very much. Clearly this doesn’t apply to every case, it’s just by far the most common occurrence, so by posting LLM text, you’re moving into a different reference class. The most likely scenario behind someone posting LLM text, purely on very general priors, is that they wrote a short prompt and got a slop response. If the person invested more effort into the interaction and has reason to believe their LLM text is of high quality and worth reading, then they should point out why (which involves being transparent about LLM usage in the first place).
I think I’d still have this preference if there was only a single LLM in existence which was both aligned and superintelligent. Text is supposed to have effects on readers, so being transparent about the nature of a text just seems like the right move.
Yeah, that is exactly how I perceive it.
Even if you let the LLM generate the answer, the least you can do is tell it “be concise” or “give me a summary” or quote the relevant part instead of dumping the entire wall of text. If you don’t bother doing even that, that signals you clearly do not value my time.
Another thing: prompts matter. If you don’t share the prompt, I have no idea whether you asked your AI to “compare X and Y, evaluate pros and cons from various perspectives, and then make a conclusion” or “give me 7 reasons why X is better than Y”. The former is potentially helpful, the lattes is not. And the more AI-psychotic the person seems, the more likely I think it was the latter.