Carney's WEF speech looks to be AI generated. While I don't have a problem with using LLMs to help with writing, can he really not afford to pay a human staffer to help write his speeches?
-
Weird how putting any actually human written text in there never gets flagged as AI generated, try it yourself kiddo https://app.gptzero.me/
I pasted in the first half of the speech and it said 100% human.
-
AI detectors are garbage. Lots of false positives. False negatives. Garbage.
-
I pasted in the first half of the speech and it said 100% human.
And there you go, it can tell the parts he actually wrote apart.
-
That’s not an effective test of whether this works. So no thank you, dear.
You’re welcome to keep coping honey. Here are the guidelines Wikipedia uses to sniff out LLM speech if you don’t trust automated tools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
Of course, it’s entirely possible that Carney naturally speaks like a chatbot, which doesn’t exactly make it better.
-
AI detectors are garbage. Lots of false positives. False negatives. Garbage.
Exactly, some people just naturally talk like chatbots, an especially common phenomenon among the political class.
-
Btw, the US constitution from 1787 seems to be AI generated: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/
-
Btw, the US constitution from 1787 seems to be AI generated: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/
nah
edit: I love how liberals, who see themselves as bastions of rational thinking, immediately start downvoting facts they don’t like
-
You are such a joke.
-
You are such a joke.
I’d be so insulted right now if I had a shred of respect for you
-
absolutely love how mad y’all are at me for pointing out that Carney talks like a chatbot
-
You are such a joke.
-
you can try it yourself by putting text written by actual people and see how that goes https://app.gptzero.me/
That doesn’t make LLM detection any more reliable
-
That doesn’t make LLM detection any more reliable
People here don’t seem to understand what LLM detection is. All it does is search for patterns that are very common in chatbot generated speech. It’s not some magical property that’s metaphysical in nature. Either the speech is written by a chatbot, or Carney naturally talks in this sort of vapid and content free fashion which is common for politicians to do.
The real tell with AI writing is in the substance. It’s the weirdly balanced, almost bloodless neutrality on complex topics, the total lack of any authentic personal stake or lived experience, and a distinct feeling that you’re reading a brilliantly comprehensive Wikipedia summary instead of a thought that formed in a human mind with memories, biases, and a body.
-
You’re welcome to keep coping honey. Here are the guidelines Wikipedia uses to sniff out LLM speech if you don’t trust automated tools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
Of course, it’s entirely possible that Carney naturally speaks like a chatbot, which doesn’t exactly make it better.
Do you know what coping is? Tangential question: do you know what the replies you’ve festooned everywhere in this conversation make it appear what you’re hard at work doing?
-
Do you know what coping is? Tangential question: do you know what the replies you’ve festooned everywhere in this conversation make it appear what you’re hard at work doing?
Coping is when you have a thread full of grown ass adults trying to pretend that Carney’s speech doesn’t read like it was written by a chat bot which it very obviously does. Let me know if you need any other topics explained to you like you’re five. For example, I could explain for you the concept of sealioning next, so you can avoid making a clown of yourself in public next time.
-
People here don’t seem to understand what LLM detection is. All it does is search for patterns that are very common in chatbot generated speech. It’s not some magical property that’s metaphysical in nature. Either the speech is written by a chatbot, or Carney naturally talks in this sort of vapid and content free fashion which is common for politicians to do.
The real tell with AI writing is in the substance. It’s the weirdly balanced, almost bloodless neutrality on complex topics, the total lack of any authentic personal stake or lived experience, and a distinct feeling that you’re reading a brilliantly comprehensive Wikipedia summary instead of a thought that formed in a human mind with memories, biases, and a body.
I get what it is. Trying myself vs you trying it doesn’t make it more reliable.
-
Coping is when you have a thread full of grown ass adults trying to pretend that Carney’s speech doesn’t read like it was written by a chat bot which it very obviously does. Let me know if you need any other topics explained to you like you’re five. For example, I could explain for you the concept of sealioning next, so you can avoid making a clown of yourself in public next time.
.ml never disappoints. Thanks for the chuckles, you certainly have a singular wit.
-
I get what it is. Trying myself vs you trying it doesn’t make it more reliable.
It’s obviously pretty reliable at statistically identifying patterns common to LLM generated text. Wikipedia, having had a problem with a flood of LLM written articles, has put put a whole detailed guideline of what these patterns are, and why they’re associated with LLM generated text. I implore you to spend at least a modicum of time to actually understand the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
-
It’s obviously pretty reliable at statistically identifying patterns common to LLM generated text. Wikipedia, having had a problem with a flood of LLM written articles, has put put a whole detailed guideline of what these patterns are, and why they’re associated with LLM generated text. I implore you to spend at least a modicum of time to actually understand the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
I know how LLMs work. Nothing you say is going to convince me that me trying it myself is going to be more reliable than you trying it.
Like, what are you even disagreeing with me on?
-
I know how LLMs work. Nothing you say is going to convince me that me trying it myself is going to be more reliable than you trying it.
Like, what are you even disagreeing with me on?
At this point, I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here is. When you say stuff like ‘it doesn’t make it more reliable’, what do you mean by that?
If you agree that you can reliably detect LLM speech patterns, then do you agree or disagree that the speech contains many patterns that closely resemble LLM generated text?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login