• Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The “can” is irrelevant here. Checking tool has to be reliable to be useful. What’s the use of having a checker that maybe detects something sometimes somewhat successfully?

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s a massive gap between “you can’t make a tool” and “you can’t identify it”.

      The problem with a tool is the exact same as the issue with LLMs to begin with. It does not resemble intelligence or comprehension in any way and cannot use it as an indicator.

      But the use of LLMs is absolutely identifiable to moderately intelligent humans, because LLM output has raw language skills wildly inconsistent with every other skill that is part of writing.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        What’s even point of your argument? That a detective can figure out who used AI? Yes detectives can figure out most stuff. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand my dude.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          What are you talking about “detectives”?

          You said “nobody can identify LLM use” when any moderately intelligent human can identify LLM output pretty easily. It explodes off the page.

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Whatever dude not playing these stupid games. You know exactly what I meant. Go away 👋