Should I point it out publicly 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 precious 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 caught it if there’s no human in the loop), should I care?
I certainly regularly use Claude for research assistance and editing feedback!
Reasons to:
Seems dishonest
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.”
IMO add it, especially if it bothers you for a given post. Cases are often egregious even when Pangram misses it. I personally feel like these posts end up long winded & eloquent (but empty of surprising insights). I am sad to read what looks to be an effort-post, only to realize it is little more than a prompt.
Alternatively, we should get an emoji react that is just ‘LLM?’
Should I point it out publicly 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 precious 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 caught it if there’s no human in the loop), should I care?
I certainly regularly use Claude for research assistance and editing feedback!
Reasons to:
Seems dishonest
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.
IMO add it, especially if it bothers you for a given post. Cases are often egregious even when Pangram misses it. I personally feel like these posts end up long winded & eloquent (but empty of surprising insights). I am sad to read what looks to be an effort-post, only to realize it is little more than a prompt.
Alternatively, we should get an emoji react that is just ‘LLM?’