There you go, attacking AI again, first for it producing content, and now for it not producing content. It is a palace of absurdity you have built. Maybe just try keeping AI out of your discussion.
Identifying AI is useful to others. Especially in academic topics (where it is less reliable) or where text lacks a disclaimer. I do so without meaning to criticise AI itself. I'm sorry if this is a sensitive topic for you, but I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying.
I have seen lots of biased hateful users such as yourself that falsely attempt to discredit valid posts by claiming they're written by AI. It's extremely dumb and evil, is not backed any evidence, and is irrelevant to the post. Even if the post to actually be written by AI, that is no reason to use that assertion to try to discredit it. It ruins an otherwise excellent comment.
I'm pretty confident they're heavily (if not fully) relying on LLM-generated text. Maybe they're drafting it themselves first and getting an LLM to refine. I found some recent articles by the same author which gave me the same reaction:
They seem to have a process for grabbing a research paper, getting an LLM to summarise it, adding AI-generated images and pseudo code, and publishing it. There are lots of parallels in describing fundamental breakthroughs overturning decades of conventional wisdom. And it has the same clipped bullet lists with sound bite phrases, and slideshow style headings. It's extremely reminiscent of what happens when I ask Claude to give me a summary of something.
As a general note, I do think it best to take any article written by AI with a pinch of salt. Much like you should closely review any code they write. It's not at the level of a human expert, but it's trained to convince you that it is one.
It is evil because it is intended to suppress discourse for irrelevant reasons. It is also deceptive because you don't exactly know the level of effort that went into it.
It should make no difference it's written by AI or not. One should evaluate and criticize content without regard to who or what has written it. Conversely, just because a human writes something should not and does not make it superior.
People like you shamelessly attempt to suppress a broad spectrum of writing whenever they find something to disagree with, by blaming it on AI. That's what's evil about it.
I'm not trying to suppress anything, but I want people to be aware. Conversely, I would gladly point out that an article on mathematics written by Terence Tao is likely to be high quality and insightful. Such guides are helpful in a world where not everyone has the time or energy to fully get to grips with the minutiae.
No, what you're doing is unfairly biasing and inciting people against AI. No author should be given a free pass. AI has done a lot more to improve my life than Terence Tao.
The way I see it, AI is a tool. Using that tool can speed up production but compromise quality and depth. Much like handcrafted furniture is higher quality than factory-produced. It's not unfair or biased to make people aware that a piece furniture is factory-produced. Likewise with AI content.
Firstly you have no hard evidence. People like you often make up that bad faith assertion to attack authors unfairly.
Secondly, almost all content is going to be produced in part with assistance from AI tools, not necessarily to write the content, but at least to discover and understand source materials for it. Would you say that a search engine was used? AI is the new search engine too.
Your assertion that using AI makes content worse is a false one. Many use it to make their content better.
Also, you originally perpetuated a false dichotomy. Content is typically going to be produced in collaboration with AI.
Instead of using your lazy attack, if you actually see a real issue with some content, why not just document any issue with the content in good faith with the mindset that the content were written by a human?
Consider what you are fighting. Do you think your fight has a future where your side will come out victorious such that humans write content without AI?
I think there's a good chance that human-crafted content by experts will have the kind of reputation that high-quality artisanal goods have today. But I'm not exactly fighting for anything, it really was an offhand comment that made up a tiny part of my take on the article.
No, and I am not affiliated with the article or its author. Your attempt at gaslighting my point is noted.
It is plain wrong to make an unsubstantiated and unproven accusation, and even if were true, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Moreover, it demonstrates an unjustified anti-AI bias which is a separate problem.
Personally, I think you need to chill. He wasn’t “attacking” it, he was just commenting and includes his interpretation about it being from AI. Why don’t YOU just focus on the primary point of his comments instead of latching onto the AI part—or is it okay when you do it?
Users such as him routinely use the AI excuse to try to discredit valid posts without evidence. It is an altogether evil act, attempting to suppress valid discourse. This merits recognizance. I was only mocking this action. Even if something were to truly be written by AI, that is not a valid reason to try to discredit it. It's not okay for anyone to do it. Why ruin an otherwise excellent comment for no reason?
