It's really just that AI detectors are snake oil

Seeing artists and animators who have been doing their thing long before AI getting demonitized or deleted with accusations of using AI to generate their work is really starting to piss me the fuck off.

I’ve gotten this a lot. I was also on early Reddit a lot so I guess AI probably just writes like I do, not the other way around

Your writing reflects a higher than normal degree of literacy. Ergo, AI use detected.

Pry those em dashes from my cold, dead hands, Louise.

Nobody who reads or writes for a living thinks AI slop sounds good. It has a hideous corpo-speak prosody that’s like nails on a chalkboard to professionals.

People think because they can’t tell it’s not written by a human, someone who has read literally tens of thousands of essays (not to mention millions of fucking book pages) can’t tell either.

Absolutely bonkers.

Students who use AI are like little kids standing on each others shoulders in a trench coat and trying to order alcohol.

It's like being accused of aimboting in a competitive shooter. I just take it as a compliment.

The old witchcraft trial.

If the paper is so badly written that it fails then it will be declared AI-free. (If she drowns then she wasn't a witch)

I don’t have to worry about it because of my numerous tpyos

Emagine being in an academic filed, and AI being trained off your research papers, so it has the same writing style as you. Give me my em dashes back.

She's possessed by a daemon!

There are ways of telling whether she is an AI.

What are AIs mode out of?

Silicon!

What else is made out of silicon?

Breast implants!

So logically if she weighs the same as a breast implant...

"I follow grammatical rules, yes"-ass rating.

Can’t have you getting away without claiming any AI use or else the Jensen Wong bubble might pop even earlier.

It's like when I used to play Black ops and battlefield 3, eventually because it wad the summer after I graduated, I basically played all day.

Eventually I was getting accused of using hacks for about 25% of my games.

The kicker: I wasn't particularly good based on the scoreboard, but after you kill the same guy 3 times through a wall because you can hear his footsteps with your headset and just spray through the wall, he gets suspicious (and probably doesn't play nearly as much)

I actually was in the top 50 worldwide for MW3 for pistol kills for awhile because for about 2 months all I did in that game was dual wield pistols, sprint after people in games that are more close quarters and go to town on my triggers.

I always liked being accused of hacking, because it made me feel like I wasn't garbage at the games.

Now I'd probably get accused of being a default bot lmao

Someone I work with who always hand writes his code used copilot to write his commit message as usual this morning.

Lo and behold it had snuck an "authored by copilot" tag onto the end of the message and github picked up on it and labeled the commit accordingly - when he saw "and copilot" next to his name on github he flipped his lid and ranted about how copilot only exists on the back of stolen code from humans and it has no right to claim any credit whatsoever to anything original like being an author ever.

He edited out the attribution and force pushed it before anyone else could commit on top of it.

(Apparently copilot writes commit messages in such a way that no matter how trivial the edit, it sounds like he'd been planning and working for hours and hours on it.)

I used to be extremely careful about my grammar and spelling. I never wanted to be called out for using the wrong there or forgetting punctuation.
after Ai though, i really don't care. At least im less likely to be taken for a robot.

i was shocked when my article on Adorno and Scruton comparison got rejected because "it reeked AI" even though AI sucks VERY-VERY HARD at analyzing and interpreting philosophy beyond NotebookLM literally retelling the uploaded book. it is so bad there is basically an entire subgenre of philosophy writing analyzing how various AI get it wrong

I did use 60% witchcraft, but they didn't notice since they're too busy looking for AI these days.

The more rules,the more AI the text becomes. So I expect a scientific text with very rigit rules in how to write is practically indistinguishable from an AI text, if written good. So tue expected value is 50% AI or human, if the text is well written. Either the AI got less rules (making it more AI) or humans make mistakes. Either way, a perfectly written text will land at 50% chance.