Yeah, our policy is to reject anything that looks like it was written or heavily edited with LLMs from new users, and I tend to downvote LLM-written content from approved users, but it is getting harder and harder to detect the difference on a quick skim, so content moderation has been getting harder.
If it doesn’t clutter the UI too much, I think an explicit message near the submit button saying “please disclose if part of your post is copy-pasted from an LLM” would go a long way!
If this is the way the LW garden-keepers feel about LLM output, then why not make that stance more explicit? Can’t find a policy for this in the FAQ either!
I think some users here think LLM output can be high value reading and they don’t think a warning is necessary—that they’re acting in good faith and would follow a prompt to insert a warning if given.
Encouraging users to explicitly label words as having come from an AI would be appreciated. So would be instructing users on when you personally find it acceptable to share words or ideas that came from an AI. I doubt the answer is “never as part of a main point”, though I could imagine that some constraints include “must be tagged to be socially acceptable”, and “must be much more dense than is typical for an LLM”, and “avoid those annoying keywords LLMs typically use to make their replies shiny”. I suspect a lot of what you don’t like is that most people have low standards about writing in general, LLM or not, and so eg, words that are seeping into typicality from LLMs using them a lot but which are simply not very descriptive or unambiguous words in the first place are not getting removed from those people’s personal preferred vocabularies.
Yeah, our policy is to reject anything that looks like it was written or heavily edited with LLMs from new users, and I tend to downvote LLM-written content from approved users, but it is getting harder and harder to detect the difference on a quick skim, so content moderation has been getting harder.
If it doesn’t clutter the UI too much, I think an explicit message near the submit button saying “please disclose if part of your post is copy-pasted from an LLM” would go a long way!
If this is the way the LW garden-keepers feel about LLM output, then why not make that stance more explicit? Can’t find a policy for this in the FAQ either!
I think some users here think LLM output can be high value reading and they don’t think a warning is necessary—that they’re acting in good faith and would follow a prompt to insert a warning if given.
Encouraging users to explicitly label words as having come from an AI would be appreciated. So would be instructing users on when you personally find it acceptable to share words or ideas that came from an AI. I doubt the answer is “never as part of a main point”, though I could imagine that some constraints include “must be tagged to be socially acceptable”, and “must be much more dense than is typical for an LLM”, and “avoid those annoying keywords LLMs typically use to make their replies shiny”. I suspect a lot of what you don’t like is that most people have low standards about writing in general, LLM or not, and so eg, words that are seeping into typicality from LLMs using them a lot but which are simply not very descriptive or unambiguous words in the first place are not getting removed from those people’s personal preferred vocabularies.