I had done a word find before responding, apparently I hadn’t expanded my view to all of the comments at that time. That’s a big mistake, but even if it was corrected, do you seriously think an LLM would print out a sentence as poorly formatted as that one? I thought the whole thing about LLMs is that they sound convincingly well written while containing false information. While it does contain a blatantly wrong fact, “a not only white skin and woman,” is not how a convincing machine would write because it’s just not grammatically correct.

I see OP’s account is new enough to be skeptical but there are too many basic writing errors for me to think it’s an LLM? What goes through your head when you see that? Do you think they’re using a basic model that’s more likely to make such mistakes? I don’t know, I don’t read much LLM output at all, maybe they make more writing mistakes than I was led to believe.

I’m so confused. Who said that? Why was the comment I responded to edited to say the same thing you just did?

I sincerely don’t understand what would lead you to think the post is AI written, I was enjoying reading people discuss Star Trek before coming across this AI thread, and after having my human written comment called AI not too long ago it bothers me to see what seems to me like earnest writing be called AI.

That’s where I’m coming from when I say that I’m willing to argue, but I follow the core tenets of arguing I learned in philosophy 101 to assume the other person (you) have something worth saying and that questions of meaning come before questions of truth. I’m open to being wrong, but I haven’t seen anything to convince me that I am.

After reading this thread I went back and skimmed through the first several lines of the post with an eye for AI/human indicators, and found three things that gave the impression of a human touch before coming back and writing my comment. First, there was a sentence in all caps, which seems weird for an LLM to do as I believe they usually go for a more neutral tone that’s antithetical to digital shouting. Second, 7o9_99 skipped the oxford comma in at least one place and a cursory internet search tells me that LLMs tend to make full use of that.

But the big thing that I feel bad saying but easily overlooked while reading it for the content is that the post is terribly formatted. My experience has been that LLMs write nice looking paragraphs, and if it does break things out into single lines it tends to do so with bullet points. This post breaks out each sentence into a new line instead of using any real paragraphs that reads to me like a person’s stream of consciousness rather than the more structured writing of an LLM. I guess you could argue they went through and hit enter everywhere to add the new lines but that seems like more work than an LLM user would be willing to put in.

Does that make sense?

Edit: The comment I responded to originally asked “Are you trying to understand or are you just looking to argue?” I’m not sure why they edited it and gave no indication that they did.

You’re surprised that someone writes differently when writing a long post about something they obviously care about vs responding to a baseless accusation that only warrants half a thought? Care to elaborate?