Should I point it out when a post I read seem to have heavy markers of AI, to me? Especially if Pangram and other AI detectors[1] don’t clock it.
Reasons not to:
I could be wrong (I think this is unlikely, but I’m not sure. I don’t have ground truth. What I do know is that pretty much no pre-2021 writings trigger this in me).
I personally get very mad when people accuse my (fully human-generated) writing as AI, excepting occasional meta-jokes. So admittedly I’m on both sides of this.
False positives are far more harmful than false negatives. FWIW I’m only tempted to do this when my subjective probability exceeds say 90%.
Is this something people actually want to be aware of?
I can’t tell if the situation is something like Writers: I consent to passing off AI writing as my own. B: I consent to reading AI writing as if it was written by a human. Linch: I don’t.
There’s not a precise demarcation between using AI to help flesh out your ideas, organize your thoughts, and proofreading vs just dump a few notes into an AI and have it write out the whole piece for you. If a piece wasn’t written 100% by AI (and it probably wasn’t, Pangram would’ve probably caught it if there’s literally no human in the loop), should I care?
I certainly regularly use Claude for research assistance and editing feedback!
Reasons to:
Seems dishonest for people to use AI assistance without disclosing
Writing that’s heavily AI-assisted comes across as same-y, and more so than you’d expect from the default EA Forum/LW “voice.”
I think it would be good for people to use the “smells like LLM” react. If it’s right, then I’d very much like to know, and if it’s wrong, I’d like the culture to broadly learn more about what false-positives we’re seeing.
I agree-voted, specifically for cases Pangram etc miss, and if you explain why you think so. Pretty curious to see examples of harder-to-discern AI smells. Re: false positive harm, some combination of non-confrontational delivery and a link to this quick take should mitigate it no?
Should I point it out when a post I read seem to have heavy markers of AI, to me? Especially if Pangram and other AI detectors[1] don’t clock it.
Reasons not to:
I could be wrong (I think this is unlikely, but I’m not sure. I don’t have ground truth. What I do know is that pretty much no pre-2021 writings trigger this in me).
I personally get very mad when people accuse my (fully human-generated) writing as AI, excepting occasional meta-jokes. So admittedly I’m on both sides of this.
False positives are far more harmful than false negatives. FWIW I’m only tempted to do this when my subjective probability exceeds say 90%.
Is this something people actually want to be aware of?
I can’t tell if the situation is something like Writers: I consent to passing off AI writing as my own. B: I consent to reading AI writing as if it was written by a human. Linch: I don’t.
There’s not a precise demarcation between using AI to help flesh out your ideas, organize your thoughts, and proofreading vs just dump a few notes into an AI and have it write out the whole piece for you. If a piece wasn’t written 100% by AI (and it probably wasn’t, Pangram would’ve probably caught it if there’s literally no human in the loop), should I care?
I certainly regularly use Claude for research assistance and editing feedback!
Reasons to:
Seems dishonest for people to use AI assistance without disclosing
Writing that’s heavily AI-assisted comes across as same-y, and more so than you’d expect from the default EA Forum/LW “voice.”
Pangram is the best AI detector on the market but they heavily optimize to have 0% false positives and are okay with false negatives.
I think it would be good for people to use the “smells like LLM” react. If it’s right, then I’d very much like to know, and if it’s wrong, I’d like the culture to broadly learn more about what false-positives we’re seeing.
Is there a way to react to entire posts? As opposed to comments?
No, unfortunately not. Not sure what the option is here, my vague guess is that I’d just react to the first line.
I agree-voted, specifically for cases Pangram etc miss, and if you explain why you think so. Pretty curious to see examples of harder-to-discern AI smells. Re: false positive harm, some combination of non-confrontational delivery and a link to this quick take should mitigate it no?