I’m confused by this. I still see this kind of phrasing in LLM generated content, even as recent as last week (using Gemini, if that matters). Are you saying that LLMs do not generate text like this, or that it’s now possible to get text that doesn’t contain the telltale “its not X, it’s Y”?

> But if it was there is currently no way for anyone to tell the difference.

This is false. There are many human-legible signs, and there do exist fairly reliable AI detection services (like Pangram).

I've tested some of those services and they weren't very reliable.

If such a thing did exist, it would exist only until people started training models to hide from it.

Negative feedback is the original "all you need."

There are no reliable AI detection services. At best they can reliably detect output from popular chatbots running with their default prompts. Beyond that reliability deteriorates rapidly so they either err on the side of many false positives, or on the side of many false negatives.

There's already been several scandals where students were accused of AI use on the basis of these services and successfully fought back.

> It wasn't AI generated.

You're lying: https://www.pangram.com/history/94678f26-4898-496f-9559-8c4c...

Not that I needed pangram to tell me that, it's obvious slop.

I wouldn't know how to prove to you otherwise other then to tell you that I have seen these tools show incorrect results for both AI generated text and human written text.

Good thing you had a stochastic model backing up (with “low confidence”, no less) your vague intuition of a comment you didn’t like being AI-written.

I must be a bot because I love existential dread, that's a great phrase. I feel like they trigger a lot on literate prose.

Sad times when the only remaining way to convince LLM luddites of somebody’s humanity is bad writing.