I would feel better about eg self selecting a tag for the post about how much an LLM was integrated into the writing process, with a spectrum of options rather than a binary
FWIW, this wouldn’t achieve approximately any of the goals of the above policy. The whole point of the policy is to maintain speech as testimony on LessWrong. Having a post that is “50% AI written” basically doesn’t help at all with that. LessWrong post writing should frequently and routinely refer to internal experiences like “I was surprised by X” or “Y felt off to me”, and if the LLMs wrote a section with those kinds of phrases, usually no amount of editing will restore meaningful testimony, and so a post that just mixes LLMs that made up random internal experiences with actual experiences a person had is failing on this dimension, even if labeled as such.
Fair enough. How about “I stand by the content of this piece as much as if I’d written it myself”? In my case, most but not all of the phrasing and wording is written by me, and I would cut anything the LLM added that I considered false testimony
I have been surprised by how bad people are at assessing whether this is actually true, but I do think it’s roughly the actual standard I have for putting content into LLM content blocks.
I would be fine with people messaging us on Intercom before publication and being like “hey, this was more heavily AI-edited but I do actually stand behind it all in testimony, can you sanity-check that that seems right to you?”, and then we can give people permission to skip the LLM content blocks. This does seem like a bit of a pain for the people involved, but I don’t super know what else to do.
Is this a problem where people in full generality are surprisingly bad at assessing LLM content, or is it more of a skill issue where we might expect the clever high-karma users to do it well and new users to be less trustworthy with it?
I wish it was the latter, but my current sense is a bunch of high karma users have been making mistakes in this direction as well (less than new users, but still too frequently).
Huh, that matches my experience that I’ve never noticed LLM-heavy writing done well, which is weird because from first principles it really seems like it shouldn’t be that hard for a good user to do.
FWIW, this wouldn’t achieve approximately any of the goals of the above policy. The whole point of the policy is to maintain speech as testimony on LessWrong. Having a post that is “50% AI written” basically doesn’t help at all with that. LessWrong post writing should frequently and routinely refer to internal experiences like “I was surprised by X” or “Y felt off to me”, and if the LLMs wrote a section with those kinds of phrases, usually no amount of editing will restore meaningful testimony, and so a post that just mixes LLMs that made up random internal experiences with actual experiences a person had is failing on this dimension, even if labeled as such.
Fair enough. How about “I stand by the content of this piece as much as if I’d written it myself”? In my case, most but not all of the phrasing and wording is written by me, and I would cut anything the LLM added that I considered false testimony
I basically don’t trust people to correctly make this call, especially as LLMs get smarter and more persuasive.
I certainly don’t trust the daily deluge of new users who have this in their posts yet are substantially producing slop.
If you don’t trust the user, why does the policy matter? Surely you need some way to gauge post quality regardless
I have been surprised by how bad people are at assessing whether this is actually true, but I do think it’s roughly the actual standard I have for putting content into LLM content blocks.
I would be fine with people messaging us on Intercom before publication and being like “hey, this was more heavily AI-edited but I do actually stand behind it all in testimony, can you sanity-check that that seems right to you?”, and then we can give people permission to skip the LLM content blocks. This does seem like a bit of a pain for the people involved, but I don’t super know what else to do.
Is this a problem where people in full generality are surprisingly bad at assessing LLM content, or is it more of a skill issue where we might expect the clever high-karma users to do it well and new users to be less trustworthy with it?
I wish it was the latter, but my current sense is a bunch of high karma users have been making mistakes in this direction as well (less than new users, but still too frequently).
Huh, that matches my experience that I’ve never noticed LLM-heavy writing done well, which is weird because from first principles it really seems like it shouldn’t be that hard for a good user to do.