No, you're right. Writing is very expressive; you can certainly get that feeling from observing how different people write, and stylometry gives objective evidence of this. If you mostly let AI write for you, you get a very specific style of writing that clearly is something the reinforcement learning is optimizing for. It's not that language models are incapable of writing anything else, but they're just tuned for writing milquetoast, neutral text full of annoying hooks and clichés. For something like fixing grammar errors or improving writing I see no reason to not consider AI aside from whatever ethical concerns one has, but it still needs to feel like your own writing. IMO you don't even really need to have great English or ridiculous linguistic skills to write good blog posts, so it's a bit sad to see people leaning so hard on AI. Writing takes time, I understand; I mean, my blog hardly has anything on it, but... It's worth the damn time.
P.S.: I'm sure many people are falsely accused of using AI writing because they really do write similarly to AI, either coincidentally or not. While I'm sure it's incredibly disheartening, I think in case of writing it's not even necessarily about the use of AI. The style of writing just doesn't feel very tasteful, the fact that it might've been mostly spat out by a computer without disclosure is just the icing on the cake. I hate to be too brutal, but these observations are really not meant to be a personal attack. Sometimes you just gotta be brutally honest. (And I'm speaking rather generally, as I don't actually feel like this article is that bad, though I can't lie and say it doesn't feel like it has some of those clichés.)
Your comment looks like it was Ai generated. I can tell from some of the words and from seeing quite a few AI essays in my time.
But seriously, anyone can just drive by and cast aspersions that something's AI. Who knows how throughly they read the piece before lobbing an accusation into a thread? Some people just do a simple regexp match for specific punctuation, eg /—/ (which gives them 100% confidence this comment was written by AI without having to read it!) Others just look at length, and simply anything think is long must be generated, because if they're too lazy to write that much,
everyone else is as well.
Well, why don't you practice what you preach? There's no need to make drive-by allegations if there is information available to you. And there is: the author responded in this thread.
Regardless, you're reading a lot of things into my comment that aren't actually there, but even if they are, I certainly didn't mean them that way. My comment wasn't about comments where someone sat down and thought about it and took the time to give reasons for their beliefs, it was about comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45596745 that do nothing for the discussion, so that receiving one like that can be dismissed without a second thought.
> Gee, what got your tensors all in a twist? I thought everyone was supposed to just brush off being called AI?
Well, first of all, I said that being accused of using AI assistance must be "incredibly disheartening". If you read my post and really came away with the opinion that I think being accused of using AI assistance is not a big deal, well, dunno what to say, I pretty much said the exact opposite.
But second of all, I wasn't expressing my offense at the joke you made, and despite what I just said, I basically don't personally care about being accused of using AI assistance to write. I already write weird: I use semicolons pretty frequently in long paragraphs, and sometimes I even use em dashes—though unlike what I've seen from ChatGPT output, I don't tend to add spaces around it. I think I write weird enough that nobody would seriously mistake my text for being AI-generated, especially because to be honest, it's not particularly good. I don't have insecurity about the humanity of the text I write; I've written an inordinate amount of comments on this site, many prior to GPT-2 existing, and they're all probably pretty stylistically consistent, so I think I'm somewhat grandfathered in.
What I was expressing was disappointment that you came around to scold people for making baseless accusations when, in my opinion, the accusations were in fact not baseless. You questioned how "thoroughly" they read the piece. Well, I mean, I read the entire piece, it wasn't that long, and I came away agreeing with the comment I ultimately replied to. I'm definitely more offended by the idea of being accused of having made a baseless accusation than the idea that my text was actually written by ChatGPT or Gemini or something.
Yes, I know. It's an old meme by Internet standards, but not one I would forget easily.
> My comment wasn't about comments where someone sat down and thought about it and took the time to give reasons for their beliefs, it was about comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45596745 that do nothing for the discussion, so that receiving one like that can be dismissed without a second thought.
Look, when someone replies bluntly to me, I tend to reply bluntly back. I get that you added some memes and an xkcd reference, but I still took your comment to be rather blunt due to what it was insinuating about me and the person I was replying to. I'm not foaming at the mouth or anything, it's totally fine. (You know, "please dont put in the newspaper that i got mad.") With that having been said: you really have to acknowledge the fact that it's not fair to get mad at me for reading your comment in the context of the comment you actually replied to (mine) rather than the comment someone else made in a different part of the thread that you didn't. I know that replying higher up the comment stack is kind of important if you want your comment to actually be read by anyone on HN, but if that results in your comment being in the completely wrong place, you can't get too mad at people for being baffled by it.
If what you wanted to do was reply to a comment you thought was not constructive, then you should've picked one, or perhaps simply flagged it. I realize there's little to no satisfaction in flagging a comment, but if you really think it isn't productive, it's the best way to vote for that.
P.S.: I'm sure many people are falsely accused of using AI writing because they really do write similarly to AI, either coincidentally or not. While I'm sure it's incredibly disheartening, I think in case of writing it's not even necessarily about the use of AI. The style of writing just doesn't feel very tasteful, the fact that it might've been mostly spat out by a computer without disclosure is just the icing on the cake. I hate to be too brutal, but these observations are really not meant to be a personal attack. Sometimes you just gotta be brutally honest. (And I'm speaking rather generally, as I don't actually feel like this article is that bad, though I can't lie and say it doesn't feel like it has some of those clichés.)