> [Not a student’s real answer, but my handmade synthesis of the style and content of many answers]
> You only have to read one or two of these answers to know exactly what’s up: the students just copy-pasted the output from a large language model, most likely ChatGPT. They are invariably
This is validating. Your imitation completely fooled me (I thought it really was ChatGPT and expected to be told as much in an entirely unsurprising "reveal") and the subsequent description of the style is very much in agreement with how I'd characterize it.
In previous discussions here, people have tried to convince me that I can't actually notice these obvious signs, or that I'm not justified in detecting LLM output this way. Well, it may be the case that all these quirks derive from the definitely-human training data in some way, but that really doesn't make them Turing-test-passing. I can remember a few times that other people showed me LLM prose they thought was very impressive and I was... very much not impressed.
> When someone comments under a Reddit post with a computer-generated summary of the original text, I honestly believe that everyone in the world would be better off had they not done so. Either the article is so vapid that a summary provides all of its value, in which case, it does not merit the engagement of a comment, or it demands a real reading by a real human for comprehension, in which case the summary is pointless. In essence, writing such a comment wastes everyone’s time.
I think you've overlooked some meta-level value here. By supplying such a comment, one signals that the article is vapid to other readers who might otherwise have to waste time reading a considerable part of the article to come to that conclusion. But while it isn't as direct as saying "this article is utterly vapid", it's more socially acceptable, and also more credible than a bald assertion.
> You only have to read one or two of these answers to know exactly what’s up: the students just copy-pasted the output from a large language model, most likely ChatGPT. They are invariably
This is validating. Your imitation completely fooled me (I thought it really was ChatGPT and expected to be told as much in an entirely unsurprising "reveal") and the subsequent description of the style is very much in agreement with how I'd characterize it.
In previous discussions here, people have tried to convince me that I can't actually notice these obvious signs, or that I'm not justified in detecting LLM output this way. Well, it may be the case that all these quirks derive from the definitely-human training data in some way, but that really doesn't make them Turing-test-passing. I can remember a few times that other people showed me LLM prose they thought was very impressive and I was... very much not impressed.
> When someone comments under a Reddit post with a computer-generated summary of the original text, I honestly believe that everyone in the world would be better off had they not done so. Either the article is so vapid that a summary provides all of its value, in which case, it does not merit the engagement of a comment, or it demands a real reading by a real human for comprehension, in which case the summary is pointless. In essence, writing such a comment wastes everyone’s time.
I think you've overlooked some meta-level value here. By supplying such a comment, one signals that the article is vapid to other readers who might otherwise have to waste time reading a considerable part of the article to come to that conclusion. But while it isn't as direct as saying "this article is utterly vapid", it's more socially acceptable, and also more credible than a bald assertion.