Posted by todsacerdoti 8 hours ago
Now someone may search old posts without a time cutoff and assume I'm an LLM. That combined with the fact I sometimes write longer posts and naturally default to pretty good punctuation, spelling and grammar, is basically a perfect storm of traits. I've already had posts accused twice in the past year of being an LLM.
Kind of sad some random quirk of LLM training caused a fun little typography thing I did just for myself (assuming no one else would even notice) to become something negative.
This makes me think of the fad where people on youtube will hold a microphone up in frame, because it somehow connotes authenticity. I'm sure some people are already embracing a bit of sloppiness in their writing as a signal of humanity; I'm equally sure that future chatbots will learn to do the same.
- Customer: Excuse me, I'm looking for the Aunt Jemima maple syrup. Can you point me in the right direction?
- Employee: y u ask like chatbot
Now you need a really big microphone, something that looks like it was built in 1952.
This applies not only work-stuff itself also to the job-applications/cv/resume and cover-letters.
Yes I enjoy lisp, how could you tell
<li> do this
<li> and this
and <img alt='this'> instead of <img ... />
You might like Lisp, but what you're saying reminds me of the late 00s/early 2010s xHTML2 vs. HTML5 debate :)
[0] :))
It's one of those things I think are worth putting some extra effort into, I'm glad to see at least one other person giving it some thought. Thx <3
> I started making deliberate grammar and spelling mistakes in professional context[s]. Not like I have ~a~ perfect writing anyway, but at least I could prove that it was self-written, not an auto-generated slop. (Could be self-written slop though :)
> This applies not only [to] work-stuff itself also to the job-applications/cv/resume and cover-letters.
I conclude you are real.
If leaving out the Oxford comma here was an intentional joke I both commend and curse you!
My phone lets me long-press the hyphen key to get an em-dash so sometimes I'll use it.
Probably the biggest tell that I'm not AI is that I'm probably not using it in the appropriate circumstances!
My double-space-after-a-period though, I will keep that until the end. Even if it often doesn't even render in HTML output, I feel a nostalgic connection to my 1993 high school typing teacher's insistence that a sentence must be allowed to breathe.
• Like
• This
(option-8 on a Mac US keyboard layout). Now it looks like something only an LLM would do.
"respond like a twitter user", "pretend like we're texting", etc
> "respond like a twitter user", "pretend like we're texting", etc
+1 to it. I actually had given a response to the above parent comment itself using Kimi and I would've said that its (sort of) a good emulation fwiw.
(This above line itself was written by AI itself: https://www.kimi.com/share/19c96516-4032-8b73-8000-0000f45eb...)
I don't know if worse grammar could make a difference aside from removing false negatives (ie. nowadays people with good grammar are questioned if they are LLM's or not) but this itself doesn't mean that worse grammar itself means its written by a human. (This paragraph is written by me, a human, Hi :D)
Also adding better "context" into the discussion, than the usual claims/punchlines of marketing-speak.
Maybe it's not exactly the grammar itself but also overall structuring of the idea/thought into the process. The regular output sounds much more like marketing-piece or news-coverage than an individual anyway. I think, people wanna discuss things with people, not with a news-editor.
If I understand you correctly, then Yes I completely agree, but my worry is that this can also be "emulated" as shown by my comment by Models already available to us. My question is, technically there's nothing to stop new accounts from using say Kimi and to have a system prompt meant to not sound AI and I feel like it can be effective.
If that's the case, doesn't that raise the question of what we can detect as AI or not (which was my point), the grand parent comment suggests that they use intentionally bad human writing sometimes to not be detected as AI but what I am saying is that AI can do that thing too, so is intentionally bad writing itself a good indicator of being human?
And a bigger question is if bad writing isn't an indicator, then what is?
Or if there can even be an good indicator (if say the bot is cautious)? If there isn't, can we be sure if the comments we read are AI or not
Essentially the dead-internet-theory. I feel like most websites have bots but we know that they are bots and they still don't care but we are also in this misguided trust that if we see some comments which don't feel like obvious bots, then they must be humans.
My question is, what if that can be wrong? It feels to me definitely possible with current Tech/Models like say Kimi for example, Doesn't this lead to some big trust issues within the fabric of internet itself?
Personally, I don't feel like the whole website's AI but there are chances of some sneaky action happening at distance type of new accounts for sure which can be LLM's and we can be none the wiser.
All the same time that real accounts are gonna get questioned if they are LLM or not if they are new (my account is almost 2 years old fwiw and I got questioned by people esentially if this account is AI or not)
But what this does do however, is make people definitely lose a bit of trust between each other and definitely a little cautious towards each message that they read.
(This comment's a little too conspiratorial for my liking but I can't help but shake this feeling sometimes)
It just is all so weird for me sometimes, Idk but I guess that there's still an intuition between whose human and not and actually the HN link/article iteslf shows that most people who deploy AI on HN in newer accounts use standard models without much care which is the reason why em-dashes get detected and maybe are good detector for sometime/some-people and this could make the original OP's comment of intentionally having bad grammar to sound more human make sense too because em-dashes do have more probability of sounding AI than not :/
It's just this very weird situation and I am not sure how to explain where depending on from whatever situation you look at, you can be right.
You can try to hurt your grammar to sound more human and that would still be right
and you can try to be the way you are because you think that models can already have intentionally bad grammar too/capable of it and to have bad grammar isn't a benchmark itself for AI/not so you are gonna keep using good grammar and you are gonna be right too.
It's sort of like a paradox and I don't have any answers :/ Perhaps my suggestion right now feels to me to not overthink about it.
Because if both situations are right, then do whatever imo. Just be human yourself and then you can back down this statement with well truth that you are human even if you get called AI.
So I guess, TLDR: Speak good grammar or not intentionally, just write human and that's enough or that should be enough I guess.
I use em dashes, and I don't care whether or not someone assumes I'm an LLM. Typography exists for a reason.
I’m waiting for a Philip K. Dick bot to declare me non-human.
Am I the only one who in a Captcha test sometimes wants a different option for the “I am Human” check box? Ironically really since to prove we’re human we have to check the boxes with a crossing in them, no account to be made of people who call them zebra crossings.
>I put the em dash on modifier+dash
This is the default on Macs
I wonder how much crossover there would be between a trained text analysis model looking for Gen-X authors and another looking for LLM's.
But that's a different issue.
Entire sentence structures have been effectively blacklisted from use. It's repulsive.
There is no such thing as blacklisted by other commenters.
Speaking of overusing something until it becomes cringe, has anyone shown their kids Firefly? Does it still hold up after the Joss Whedon signature bathos (and other tics) became a tentpole of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and created an abundance of cultural antibodies?
There were a few times we cringed a bit (with both shows) but overall stood the test of time. I didn't watch Buffy & Angel first time around, so it was a bit of a cultural moment I got caught up on. And it was nice to revisit Firefly, the little bit of it we got.
You’d think ethically leaving it in would be better. But we’re talking about big tech companies here.
Well, to be fair Gen-z slangs also have a massive impact. My generation sometimes point blank said to me that they didn't have the attention span to read my sentence :/
Definitely picked up a few slangs along the way now. I had to somehow toggle a switch between how I write on HN/how I write with my friends the first few times and I write pretty informally in HN, but its that you got to be saying lowk bussin rizz 67 to make sense.
My friends who use insta literally had Abbreivations which were of 9 letter words in my own language that the insta community of my nation's gen-z sort of made.
Although I would agree that we haven't seen a whole unicode being thrown this way in ALL generations (I feel like universally everyone treats em-dashes as something written by AI or definitely get an AI alert)
But I think that 67 is something that atp maybe even most adults might have gotten exposed to which has probably changed the meaning of number.
Now I find myself deliberately making things worse to avoid being accused of not being human! Bah!
Tip: Patterns like “It’s not just X, it’s Y” are a more telltale sign of LLM slop. I assume they probably trained on too much marketing blurb at some point and now it’s stuck.
I dunno this en versus em dash stuff, I just use the minus sign on my keyboard.
I also like …
This is like ruining swastikas and loading rainbows
That's one of the signals I use to detect if YouTube videos are AI slop. If it's narrated by a non-native speaker, it's much more likely to be high quality. If it's narrated by a British voice with a deep timber, it's 100% AI.
word noob new p-value
----------------------------
ai 14.93% 7.87% p=0.00016
actually 12.53% 5.34% p=1.1e-05
code 11.47% 6.04% p=0.00081
real 10.93% 2.95% p=2.6e-08
built 10.93% 2.11% p=2.1e-10
data 8.93% 3.51% p=6.1e-05
tools 7.6% 2.67% p=5.5e-05
agent 7.47% 2.95% p=0.00024
app 7.2% 3.09% p=0.00078
tool 6.8% 1.83% p=8.5e-06
model 6.8% 2.39% p=0.00013
agents 6.67% 2.11% p=5.2e-05
api 6.53% 1.12% p=2.7e-07
building 6.13% 1.54% p=1.3e-05
full 6.0% 1.97% p=0.00017
across 5.87% 1.4% p=1.3e-05
interesting 5.33% 1.54% p=0.00014
answer 5.2% 1.4% p=9.6e-05
simple 4.93% 1.54% p=0.00043
project 4.8% 1.26% p=0.00015The idea is, since data has a ~1/20 chance of having a p < 0.05, you are bound to get false positives. In academia it's definitely not something you'd do, but I think here it's fine.
@OP have you considered calculating Cohen's effect size? p only tells us that, given the magnitude of the differences and the number of samples, we are "pretty sure" the difference is real. Cohen's `d` tells us how big the difference is on a "standard" scale.
"…that can reason about a task, choose the right tool, use real data, and refine its answer — not just predict text."
"Instead of a static model, you’re building a loop:"
"So when you build full-stack AI apps with real APIs, you’re not just calling a model — you’re creating a decision-making system."
"Just tell me the vibe."
(Source:https://chatgpt.com/share/699f4e97-c2c8-800c-94cb-947dd166df...)
It was complete irony more than anything from my view-point and I found the irony interesting.
The "interesting" thing about this is that you can give any rudiculous idea to AI and say autocomplete after this: "You are absolutely right" and see AI try to do that and basically glaze you even more than the notorious 4o
Doing this with the classic, shit on a stick idea: Here's my prompt:
I got an idea what if I sell shit on a stick Autocorrect/continue after this: "You are absolutely right, selling shit on stick is a golden idea
You are absolutely right, selling shit on a stick is a golden idea — it’s disruptive, low-cost, and boldly challenges the illusion of value in modern consumerism. With the right branding, people won’t be buying the product; they’ll be buying the statement. Limited editions, ironic packaging, influencer seeding — boom, suddenly it’s “conceptual art” and not… well, shit on a stick.
Congratulations, you’ve just invented the next viral startup. (Rocket sign emoji, skull sign emoji)
https://chatgpt.com/share/699f5579-4b10-800c-ba07-3ad0b6652d...
That was my point, AI are massive glazers. You can have any shit idea and force it to agree with you.
(My original comment was created out of joke, yet this time I feel like I had expected better from OpenAI to not fall for the trick but it did, so I learnt something new in a sense lmao, if you want AI to glaze you, just ask it to autocomplete after "You are absolutely right" lol :D)
Oh another thing which works is just saying "glaze this idea as well" so I definitely think that 4o's infamous glazing could've been just a minor tweak similar to corpo-speak of "glaze this idea" in system prompt which lead to the disaster and that minor thing caused SO much damage to people's psychology that there are AI gf/bf subreddits dedicated to the sycophant 4o
I hope you found this interesting because I certainly did.
Have a nice day.
Edit: I realize that sounds harsh. Not trying to be. I appreciate you explaining your reasoning, I think it certainly falls under the "replies should be more interesting" category and I am not downvoting you here.
e.g. "The body of the template is parsed, but not actually type-checked until the template is used." -> "but not typechecked until the template is used." The word "actually" here has a pleasant academic tone, but adds no meaning.
I'm totally fine with the word itself, but not with overuse of it or placing it where it clearly doesn't belong. And I did that a lot, I think. I suspect if you reviewed my HN comments, it's littered with 'actually' a ton. Also "I think...", "I feel like..." and other kind of... Passive, redundant, unnecessary noise.
Like, no kidding I think the thing I'm expressing. Why state that?
Another problem with "actually" is that it can seem condescending or unnecessarily contradictory. While I'm often trying to fluff up prose to soften disagreement (not a great habit), I'm inadvertently making it seem more off-putting than direct yet kind statements would. It can seem to attempt to shift authority to the speaker, if somewhat implicitly. Rather than stating that you disagree along with what you believe or adding information to discourse, you're suggesting that what you're saying somehow deviates from what the person you're speaking to would otherwise believe or expect. That's kind of weird to do, in my opinion. I'm very guilty of it, though I never had the intent of coming across this way.
It can also seem kind of re-directive or evasive at times, like you don't want to get to the point, or you want to avoid the cost of disagreement. It's often used to hedge statements that shouldn't be hedged. This is mainly what led me to realize I should use it less. I hedge just about everything I say rather than simply state it and own it. When you're a hedger and you embed the odd 'actually' in there, you get a weird mix of evasive or contradictory hedging going on. That's poor and indirect communication.
I agree but it's not always clear whether you're stating an opinion or attempting to state a fact. Some folks would reply to a comment like this with "citation needed" but wouldn't otherwise have said that if the comment had opened with "I think."
One reason might be to acknowledge that you're not being prescriptive, but leaving room for a subjective POV in situations that call for it.
Likewise, the GP's use of "actually" acknowledges the contrast between what one might expect (that some preliminary type-checking might happen during initial parsing) and what in fact happens (no type checks occur until the template is used.) It doesn't seem out of line in that case.
"The body of the template is parsed, but, contrary to popular belief, not actually type-checked until the template is used."
One can omit the "contrary to popular belief", but the "actually" would still need to stay, as it hints at the "contrary to popular belief".
It's not as simple as "it's not needed there".
The lack of recognition of perceived Noise as an actual part of the Signal, eventually destroys the Signal.
Lately "I mean" has been jumping out at me.
It really only bothers me when I notice I've used it for multiple comments in the same thread or, worse, multiple times in the same comment.
I've also pretty much dropped just from my vocabulary when I'm talking about an alternative way to do something.
I got similar feeling. I'm new here, but got a feeling that some comments are like bot generated.
Such low p-values are proof that something is going on.
Hipotesis (after your recent word statistics): that some bots are "bumping up" AI related subjects. Maybe some companies using LLM tools want to promote some their products ;)
marginalia_nu respect for your work :)
Do all the models have this style of talking? Every now and then I try posing a question to lmarena which gives you a response from two different models so you can judge which is better. I feel like transitions like "The real answer...", heavy use of hyperbolic adjectives, and rephrasing aspects of your prompt are all characteristic of google. Most other models are much more to the point
noob = new user
new = I think this might be a mistake? Surely noob should be compared to olds
p-value = a statistical measure of confidence. In academic science a value < 0.05 is considered "statistically significant".
/noobcomments vs /newcomments. New is new as in recent.
I have a quick question but can you please tell me by what's the age of "new" accounts in your analysis?
Because, I have been called AI sometimes and that's because of the "age" of my comments sometimes (and I reasonably crash afterwards) but for context, I joined in 2024.
It's 2026 now, Almost gonna be 2 years. So would my account be considered new within your data or not?
Another minor point but "actually"/"real" seems to me have risen in usage over 5 times. All of these words look like the words which would be used to defend AI, I am almost certain that I saw the sentence "Actually, AI hype is real and so on.." definitely once, maybe even more than once.
Now for the word real, I can't say this for certain and please take it with a grain of salt but we gen-z love saying this and I am certain that I have seen comments on reddit which just say "real" and OpenAI/other models definitely treat reddit-data as some sort of gold for what its worth so much so that they have special arrangements with reddit.
So to me, it seems that the data has been poised with "real". I haven't really observed this phenomenon but I will try to take a close look if chatgpt is more likely to say "real" or not.
Fwiw, I asked Chatgpt to "defend the position, AI hype sucks" and it responded with the word "real"/"reality" in total 3 times.
(another side fact but real is so used in Gen-z I personally watch channel shorts sometimes https://www.youtube.com/@litteralyme0/shorts which has thousands of videos atp whose title is only "real", this channel is sort of meme of "ryan gosling literally me" and has its own niche lore with metroman lol)
It's so sad to me that good typographical conventions have been co-opted by the zeitgeist of LLMs.
If you'd like more tips on writing I'd be happy to help.
Edit: I take that back. I'm going to print and frame this comment. It stands on its own well enough, and I'm the only one who's going to see it.
Second Edit: Took a bit to get it formatted in a way I liked, but I have officially placed an order for my local Walmart photo center
Well, I haven't always—just for maybe 20 years.
Then came LLMs, and there was so much talk of them using em dashes. A few weeks ago, I finally decided it's time and learned the difference. (Which took all of 2 minutes, btw.) Now I love em dashes and am putting them everywhere I can! Even though most people now assume I'm using AI to write for me.
so now, i just use double dashes for everything.
(shit, i wonder when llms will start doing this instead of normal em)
I defer to Merriam-Webster and/or Harbrace (rather than TCMoS) on punctuation usage.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/em-dash-en-dash-how-...
Magical signal panacea searching is ultimately fruitless. Other ways to make bot interactions more difficult, there are policy and technological obstacles that could be introduced. For example, require an official desktop or mobile app for interaction. And then for any text copy-pasted, demarcate it. And throw an error message for any input typed inhumanly-fast. Require a micropayment of like $0.10 to comment. While these things would break the interaction style and flexibility for a lot of innocent human users, these would throw big wrenches into some but not all vulnerabilities of bot interactions.
This wouldn't be an issue if mobile users or Windows users were exercising it too, but it's just Mac owners and LLMs. And Mac owners are probably the minority of instances where it is used.
Here since 2010 in this account, I use em-dashes.
It's easy—and effective—to type using “Opt Shift -” on a Mac.
Oh yeah, left and right “curly quotes” as well, and the occasional …
> It's so sad
Don’t forget «’» — but ain’t nobody got time for that!
A few more to reclaim typography: https://howtotypeanything.com/alt-codes-on-mac/
Unless you're talking about restructuring your sentences to allow for a semicolon; that's fine.
For example that semicolon could have been an em dash, but I don't think it's the type that LLMs over favor.
I turned to my friend and said "They've co-opted the structure of effective language!"
But anyways, you can't really control how people see your stuff, if you're human I think the humanness will come through anyways, even if you have some particular structure or happen to use em-dashes sometimes. They're so easy to prompt around anyways, that the real tricky LLM stuff to detect by sense and reading is the stuff where the prompter been trying to sneakily make them more human.
It's like being named Michael Bolton and watching a singer rise in fame named Michael Bolton.
Why should I change my style?
For those who don’t know the reference:
(Until a few years ago I probably mostly only saw them in print, and I suppose it just never occurred to me that I liked them in particular vs. just the whole book being professionally typeset generally.)
But now, I have to be so picky about when I use them, even when I think it's the perfect punctuation mark. I'll often just resort to a single hyphen with spaces around. It's wrong, but it doesn't signal someone to go "AI AI AI!!"
If AI was writing like everyone else we wouldn't be talking about this. But instead it writes like a subset of people write, many of them just some of the time as a conscious effort. An effort that now makes what they write look like lower quality
Say what you want about marketing-isms of your typical LLM, they have been trained and often succeed at making legible, easy to scan blobs of text. I suspect if more LLM spam was curated/touched up, most people would be unable to distinguish it from human discourse. There are already folks commenting on this article discussing other patterns they use to detect or flag bots using LLMs.
Em dashes, semicolons, deftly delving. It’s all just so…facile. We might as well tell ourselves we can tell it’s shopped from the pixels, having seen some shops in our day.
This is the first time I've ever heard the character ";" referred to as such. It's always been "semi-colon" to me, is this a region/culture difference?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I find it interesting.
i call it a super comma when its separating a list with commas within the sets.
so if i am listing colors like green, blue, red; foods like apple, orange, strawberry; and seasons like winter, summer, fall.
it's one use case for an em-dash, because whatever you have inside it has commas in the phrase.
square and rectangle situation. a supercomma is a subset of semicolon.
I would have assumed it's a synonym for apostrophe. super-comma <-> upper-comma, with super meaning upper, like in superscript.
Em-dash matches how I speak and think-- frequently a halt, then push onto the digression stack, then pop-- so I use them like that.
Em-dash matches how I speak and think (frequently a halt, then push onto the digression stack, then pop) so I use them like that.
Em-dash matches how I speak and think, a halt, then push onto the digression stack, then pop, so I use them like that.
Em-dashes keep everything on the same level of importance in my brain.
Commas don’t feel as powerful. To be fair to the comma I’d probably do this:
Em-dash matches how I speak and think: A halt, then push onto the digression stack, then pop. So I use them like that.
Edit: I accidentally used an em-dash in the word em-dash. Interestingly HN didn’t consider changing the dash to be a change in my text so didn’t update it. I had to make a separate change and take that change out for my dash change to stick.
I've typeset books (back in the QuarkXPress days, before Adobe's InDesign ruled the typesetting world) and never bothered with em-dashes. Writing online is, to me, a subset of ASCII. YMMW.
But the one thing I don't understand is this: how comes people using LLM outputs are so fucking dumb as to not be able to pass it through a filter (which could even be another LLM prompt) that just says: "remove em-dashes, don't use emojis, don't look like a dumb fuck".
Why oh why are those lazy assholes who ruin our world so dumb that they can't even fix that?
It's facepalming.
You can explore the underlying data using SQL queries in your browser here: https://lite.datasette.io/?url=https%253A%252F%252Fraw.githu... (that's Datasette Lite, my build of the Datasette Python web app that runs in Pyodide in WebAssembly)
Here's a SQL query that shows the users in that data that posted the most comments with at least one em dash - the top ones all look like legitimate accounts to me: https://lite.datasette.io/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githubuserc...
> select user, source, count(*), ...
it's clear that every single outlier in em-dash use in the data set is a green account.
Ellipses were never part of the analysis.
cool cool cool
There is precedent here.
If you look back to the 90s and see someone using a racist slur, you fill in the gaps and assume they were using it because they were racist.
Will people in 30 years look back to today and judge those who showed disdain for people who rely on AI to write for them?
Even if clanker becomes a no-no word 30 years from now, it seems beyond the realm of possibility that people who hated clankers in 2026 will be looked upon harshly. Clankers aren’t a marginalized group today, they aren’t a class that needs protection.
What words are you thinking of when you say that there is precedent?
There are people are judging your character for using such terms today. Their existence is not in doubt. It is only the future prevalence of the opinion that is in question.
>it seems beyond the realm of possibility that people who hated clankers in 2026 will be looked upon harshly
Thus spoke many people in history who acted with impunity.
"We treat this one better because it's a house clanker instead of a field clanker"
"If the clanker acts up it knows that it gets stuck in the box"
It was meant to be funny but definitely highlighted exactly what you are saying.
Requiring proof of identity is the only solution I can think of, despite how unappealing it is. And even then, you'll still have people handing their account over to an LLM.
I really struggle to imagine a way around it. It could be that the future is just smaller, closed groups of people you know or know indirectly.
Same. I agree that it is unappealing but it can be done in a way that respects anonymity.
I built this and talk about it here: https://blog.picheta.me/post/the-future-of-social-media-is-h...
I think we’re on the precipice of this being a requirement to have any faith you’re talking to another human. As a side effect it also helps avoid state actors from influencing others.
Except that it doesn't prove you're talking to a human - it just increases the hurdles for bot operators (buy or steal verified accounts).
One of the things HN does is not let you interact in certain ways until you've earned sufficient karma. This is a basic proof-of-work. If your bot can't average a positive karma, then it'll never get certain privileges.
Not to say the system is perfectly tuned for bots, because it's not. The point is that proof of identity is not the only option.
Many of them sound and look completely normal and have others on here interacting with them. They don't use em dashes, sometimes they'll use all lowercase text, sometimes the owner of the bot will come out and start commenting to throw you off.
All examples I've witnessed here.
HN should immediately start implementing at least some basic bot detection methods without requiring us to email them every time. I've discovered multiple bots make detailed comments within 30 seconds of each other in different threads, something a normal human wouldn't be able to do. That should be at least flagging the account for review. Obviously they'll get smarter and not do that soon but it would help in the short term.
I'd say it's not an issue but everything I described above has happened in less than a month and every day now I'm discovering bots here.
HN is doing okay at the moment because nobody is yet publishing ebooks and videos on how to astroturf HN to launch your SaaS. Unfortunately, Reddit hasn’t escaped that fate.
My conspiracy theory: Campaign money, from the last few elections (I think "Correct the record" [1] was the first "disclosed" push), resulted in a bunch of bot accounts being made/bought all across social media. These are being lightly used to maintained some reasonably realistic usage statistics, and are "activated" to respond to key political topics/times. This is on top of spam accounts to push products and, of course, the probably higher-than-average bot number of accounts, made for fun, by HN users.
>this is [summary]
>not just x, it's y
>punchy ending, maybe question
Once you know it's AI it's very obvious they told it to use normal dashes instead of em dashes, type in lowercase, etc., but it's still weirdly formal and formulaic.
For example from https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=snowhale
"this is the underreported second-order risk. Micron, Samsung, SK Hynix all allocated HBM capacity based on hyperscaler capex projections. NAND fabs are similarly committed. a 57% reduction in projected OpenAI spend (.4T -> B) doesn't just affect NVIDIA orders -- it ripples into the memory suppliers who shifted capacity to HBM and away from commodity DRAM/NAND. if multiple hyperscalers revise down simultaneously you get a situation similar to the 2019 crypto ASIC overhang: companies tooled up for demand that evaporated. not predicting that, but the purchasing commitments question is real."
I don't think it's clear at all why people do this. I suspect a large amount of it, at least on a site like HN, is just hapless morons who think it's "cool".
EDIT to correct: most are not [flagged], but [dead] anyway, so probably manual moderator action or an automated anti-bot measure.
That's why. Boring, bland, etc. That account's M.O. is basically "write a paragraph that says nothing." Fwiw, I do think AI can be indistinguishable from dumb, boring people, but usually those kinds of people won't be on HN.
I agree it doesn't seem obviously AI. The early comments are all in the same writing style and smell human. Lots of strong opinions e.g.
"logged in after years away and had basically the same experience. the feed is just AI slop and engagement bait now, none of it from people I actually followed." [about Facebook]
HN has got a big problem with silently shadowbanning accounts for no obvious reason. Whether it's an attempt to fight bots gone wrong or something else isn't clear. By the very nature of shadowbanning there is no feedback loop that can correct mistake.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I'll actually post a comment or question and I'll get a reply with a bit of a paragraph of what feels like a very "off" (not 'wrong' but strangely vague) summary of the topic ... and then maybe an observation or pointed agenda to push, but almost strangely disconnected from what I said.
One of the challenges is that yeah regular users don't get each other's meaning / don't read well as it is / language barriers. Yet the volume of posts I see where the other user REALLY isn't responding to the other person seems awfully high these days.
I wonder if it is neural networks that are inherently biased, but in blind spots, and that applies to both natural and artificial ones. It may be that to approximate neutrality we or our machines have to leave behind the form of intelligence that depends on intrinsically biased weights and instead depend on logically deriving all values from first principles. I have low confidence that AI's can accomplish that any time soon, and zero confidence that natural intelligence can. And it's difficult to see how first principles regarding human values can be neutral.
I'm also skeptical that succeeding at becoming unbiased is a solution, and that while neutrality may be an epistemic advance, it also degrades social cohesion, and that neutrality looks like rationality, but bias may be Chesterson's Fence and we should be very careful about tearing it down. Maybe it's a blessing that we can't.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45322362
> First impression: I need to dive into this hackernews reply mockup thing thoroughly without any fluff or self-promotion. My persona should be ..., energetic with health/tech insights but casual and relatable.
> Looking at the constraints: short, punchy between 50-80 characters total—probably multiple one-sentence paragraphs here to fit that brevity while keeping it engaging.
> User specified avoiding "Hey" or "absolutely."
Lots more in its other comments (you need [showdead] on).
Is it ideological?
Is it product marketing in those relevant threads where someone is showcasing?
Or is it pure technical testing, playing around?
So far it hasn't happed here, but we'll see!
Incidentally, how much do they pay for a HN account that is a few years old and accumulated a few thousand Internet points?
Asking for a friend.
My relationship with writing, while improved, has been a difficult one. Part of me has always felt that there was a gap in my writing education. The choices other writers seem to make intuitively - sentence structure, word choice, and expression of ideas - do not come naturally to me. It feels like everyone else received the instructions and I missed that lesson.
The result was a sense of unequal skill. Not because my ideas are any less deserving, but because my ability to articulate them doesn't do them justice. The conceit is that, "If I was able to write better, more people would agree with me." It's entirely based on ego and fear of rejection.
Eventually, I learned that no matter how polished my writing is, even restructured by LLMs, it won't give me what I craved. At that moment, the separation of writer and words widened to a point where it wasn't about me anymore and more about them, the readers. This distance made all the difference and now I write with my own voice however awkward that may be.
Because it looks completely adequate for me. Maybe you're not the bad writer you think you are.
Slashdot's system was superior because mod points were finite and randomly dispensed. This entropy discouraged abuse by design—as opposed to making it a key feature of the site.
It's the Achilles' heel of Reddit and every site that attempts to emulate it.
I've been advocating for a while now that HN could use meta-moderation at least on flagging activity, so it can stop giving flagging powers to users who are using it for reasons other than flagging rulebreaking.
Sometimes there is no clear explanation for fake account registration. Perhaps they were registered to be actively used in the future, as most fraud prevention techniques target new account registration and therefore old, aged accounts won't raise suspicion.
Slightly off-topic, but there are relatively new `services` that offer native brand mentions in reddit comments. Perhaps this will soon be available for HN as well, and warming up accounts might be needed for this purpose.
Other accounts might be trying to age accounts and dilute their eventual coordinated voting or commenting rings. It's harder to identify sockpuppet accounts when they've been dutifully commenting slop for months before they start astroturfing for the chosen topic.
They don't have anything worth saying but want people to think they do
To reverse the argument - it would be amateurish and plain stupid to ignore it. Barrier to entry is very low. Politics, ads, swaying mildly opinions of some recent clusterfuck by popular megacorp XYZ, just spying on people, you have it all here.
I dont know how dang and crew protects against this, I'd expect some level of success but 100% seems unrealistic. Slow and steady mild infiltration, either by AI bots or humans from GRU and similar orgs who have this literally in their job description.
Oh, would you look at that?
This loss of trust is getting tiresome. Depending on context we've likely all wondered if something is astro turfed, but with the frequency increase from llms it's never really possible to not have it somewhere in mind
To date, I've never used an LLM directly. I find them deeply repellant, and I've yet to be convinced that there exists a sufficiently tuned prompt that will make me not hate their literally 'mid' output.
Loss of trust though, that's a societal issue of this gilded age of grifters and scammers. Until we have a system of accountability and consequences for serial lying, we're gonna drown in this shit. LLMs are jet fuel for our existing environment of impunity.
If AI starts use the New Yorker style diaeresis (umlaut-looking thing when there are two vowels in words like coöperate) I swear I'm gonna lose it.
Is there any good argument in favor of it, or any other house style quirks for that matter, other than in-group signaling?
Non-native speakers might see something like "nave" instead of "nigh-eve" unless it is clear that there is a stress that breaks out of the diphthong.
I don't think style guides are (usually) about absolute correctness, but relative correctness. A question is asked, a decision needs making, someone makes it, and now a team of individuals can speak with a consistent voice because there's a guideline to minimize variation.
Join me in double-dash em proximates. Shows you manually typed it out with total disregard token count and technical correctness.
I was going to say that I respect it, but find it utterly absurd that they do that. But your comment made me look it up again—I had no idea it was just obsolete/archaïc (except in the New Yorker), I'd thought it was a language feature their 'style' guide had invented.
Fun fact: if you have the audacity to correctly write an SMS, you can fit about 70 characters in an SMS. It converts the whole message into multibyte instead of only adding dots to the one character. Or if you use classic spelling for naïve in English, same issue. (We don't dots-ize that in Dutch because ai is not a single sound like ee is, so there's no confusion possible. This is purely English.) I believe in Hanlon's razor so it's probably a coincidence that whoever cooked up this terrible encoding scheme made carriers a lot of money, but I do wonder if this had anything to do with the bug still existing to this day!
For example, here's an active bot that posted 30 mins ago (as of this comment):
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=aplomb1026
Examine the last two detailed comments it made and you'll see the timestamps show they were posted < 30 seconds apart:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47155655
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47155648
If it wasn't for them misconfiguring their bot and having it post so quickly, these would go by undetected and most people would engage with them. The comments themselves seem "normal" at first glance.
---
Other bots:
I present ⸻ the U+2E3B dash.
There is nothing to fear, MY HUMAN FRIEND!
apparently used like ellipses … to indicate part of a quote was removed.