Quick heads up: I reviewed this post and thought it was just at the edge of how much it relied on AI written text. I think it would be good if future posts of yours flagged which parts of it were AI written more clearly.
Hi habryka, sorry to bother, but could you let me know if this was a misflag?
Info: I spent ca. 40-50h actively writing this post (I wrote material for part 2 and 3 in parallel). 20h before any editing. Used maybe 40 min for AI summaries.
Original was much longer and too theoretical, and so ill suited for a LW post (by new user). Used AI writing assistant for the short summaries. Then, recommendations for shortening some sections. Rewrote those manually, but some suggestion sentences may have stuck, can’t say for sure.
I checked LLM guidelines before posting. If I missed something, please let me know. Did not see anything that per guidelines merited highlighting.
Doesn’t look like a missflag to me? I would still give the same warning. The whole thing seems very LLM-inspired to me and is the kind of thing I would probably just straight reject if I was making the call again.
It really, isn’t at all LLM inspired, at all, and is quite novel, high quality content. Polishing probably throws you off. I understand the team has no time to read it, just skimming. That’s good to know for a start. So you decide based on vibes and prior experience.
I’ll be mindful to follow the rules. As always. I’ve known LW since 2012.
The only part where AI textual feedback is incorporated is the summary 👍🏻
EDIT:
It would be good to know why it came flagged like that. The text is distilled by me from my own writing. I have ca. 10 draft versions you can check if you want.
Also, do you put this into an AI model to ask for P of AI? How does that work? I assume memory and ‘fair to train on ’is turned off, and the text is deleted afterwards? I don’t want my texts to be incorporated into AI models like GPT.
Quick heads up: I reviewed this post and thought it was just at the edge of how much it relied on AI written text. I think it would be good if future posts of yours flagged which parts of it were AI written more clearly.
Hi habryka, sorry to bother, but could you let me know if this was a misflag?
Info: I spent ca. 40-50h actively writing this post (I wrote material for part 2 and 3 in parallel). 20h before any editing. Used maybe 40 min for AI summaries.
Original was much longer and too theoretical, and so ill suited for a LW post (by new user). Used AI writing assistant for the short summaries. Then, recommendations for shortening some sections. Rewrote those manually, but some suggestion sentences may have stuck, can’t say for sure.
I checked LLM guidelines before posting. If I missed something, please let me know. Did not see anything that per guidelines merited highlighting.
Doesn’t look like a missflag to me? I would still give the same warning. The whole thing seems very LLM-inspired to me and is the kind of thing I would probably just straight reject if I was making the call again.
Okay, sure. Thank you for answering.
It really, isn’t at all LLM inspired, at all, and is quite novel, high quality content. Polishing probably throws you off. I understand the team has no time to read it, just skimming. That’s good to know for a start. So you decide based on vibes and prior experience.
I’ll be mindful to follow the rules. As always. I’ve known LW since 2012.
The only part where AI textual feedback is incorporated is the summary 👍🏻
EDIT:
It would be good to know why it came flagged like that. The text is distilled by me from my own writing. I have ca. 10 draft versions you can check if you want.
Also, do you put this into an AI model to ask for P of AI? How does that work? I assume memory and ‘fair to train on ’is turned off, and the text is deleted afterwards? I don’t want my texts to be incorporated into AI models like GPT.