You know you can just not read an article and move on. But if you’re going to argue about accuracy of the article then you kinda have to at least show an example of it being inaccurate. The reality is that there’s been plenty terrible and hard to read articles written long before LLMs were a thing, and this one is far from the worst I’ve seen. It seems to me that you’re just bothered that an LLM was used to put the text together.
I argued that use of genAI and leaving in tells was a indicator of the author not caring about accuracy and so the tells are, in my experience, an indication that any article is likely to be low quality information. This was in reply to someone saying that you may as well get used to LLMs
But… I do not, nor did I, express an opinion on if this was written by genAI. That’s error prone and I know I’m not skilled at it.
What I did express an opinion on was that the article is terribly written since I didn’t enjoy the parts I did read, they took time to get to the point and included a lot of sentences and words that could simply be deleted.
And I’m saying that doesn’t follow at all. In fact, accuracy could be the only thing the author cares about, so he can read over and make sure there are no factual mistakes leaving the generated style as is. It’s honestly just so tiring having threads derailed by this endless perseveration people are doing over things being LLM generated. This is the world we live in now.
Also, it’s kinda weird to immediately claim that people disagreeing with you have to be alts or something. Like you really can’t conceive of your opinion not being dominant?
I do not, nor did I, express an opinion on if this was written by genAI.
But more generally agreed genAI can be used to increase accuracy, I also said this:
If the genAI was just used for proofing or some tweaks for readability then the signs of its use wouldn’t be so obvious.
It looks like I should have deleted “the” in the above sentence.
And the alts thing is because a lot of people on Lemmy are opposed to genAI so having multiple accounts replying with a lot of energy seemed defensive of something. If that something is actually genAI then keep enjoying it I guess… but circling back, you’re right that the internet will continue to be filled with LLM material but we’re starting to see branding of “not genAI” and some demographics choosing those while others prefer genAI. I just wish it was normalised for people to say they used it, like people are meant to when they’ve received money from brands
My whole point throughout this discussion has been that whether LLM was used to edit this or not is entirely uninteresting. Meanwhile, it depends on what instance of Lemmy you’re on. Perhaps in the bubbles you frequent, most people are obsessing over genAI. My experience is that people are fairly split on the subject. What I personally find tiresome is people derailing conversations away from interesting subjects to endlessly discuss whether something is AI or not. It’s just noise at this point, and people really need to find a new hobby.
You know you can just not read an article and move on. But if you’re going to argue about accuracy of the article then you kinda have to at least show an example of it being inaccurate. The reality is that there’s been plenty terrible and hard to read articles written long before LLMs were a thing, and this one is far from the worst I’ve seen. It seems to me that you’re just bothered that an LLM was used to put the text together.
I didn’t argue about the accuracy of the article
I argued that use of genAI and leaving in tells was a indicator of the author not caring about accuracy and so the tells are, in my experience, an indication that any article is likely to be low quality information. This was in reply to someone saying that you may as well get used to LLMs
But… I do not, nor did I, express an opinion on if this was written by genAI. That’s error prone and I know I’m not skilled at it.
What I did express an opinion on was that the article is terribly written since I didn’t enjoy the parts I did read, they took time to get to the point and included a lot of sentences and words that could simply be deleted.
Are these all the authors alts or something?
And I’m saying that doesn’t follow at all. In fact, accuracy could be the only thing the author cares about, so he can read over and make sure there are no factual mistakes leaving the generated style as is. It’s honestly just so tiring having threads derailed by this endless perseveration people are doing over things being LLM generated. This is the world we live in now.
Also, it’s kinda weird to immediately claim that people disagreeing with you have to be alts or something. Like you really can’t conceive of your opinion not being dominant?
But more generally agreed genAI can be used to increase accuracy, I also said this:
It looks like I should have deleted “the” in the above sentence.
And the alts thing is because a lot of people on Lemmy are opposed to genAI so having multiple accounts replying with a lot of energy seemed defensive of something. If that something is actually genAI then keep enjoying it I guess… but circling back, you’re right that the internet will continue to be filled with LLM material but we’re starting to see branding of “not genAI” and some demographics choosing those while others prefer genAI. I just wish it was normalised for people to say they used it, like people are meant to when they’ve received money from brands
My whole point throughout this discussion has been that whether LLM was used to edit this or not is entirely uninteresting. Meanwhile, it depends on what instance of Lemmy you’re on. Perhaps in the bubbles you frequent, most people are obsessing over genAI. My experience is that people are fairly split on the subject. What I personally find tiresome is people derailing conversations away from interesting subjects to endlessly discuss whether something is AI or not. It’s just noise at this point, and people really need to find a new hobby.