Wow, good catch. I was fooled by this, and I'm usually not.

"The part that actually hurts is who is left." - that was the tell for me

Yea, funny how those stick out...

...how is this "anti AI content"? This is a real issue.

If the top level comment is to be believed, it's 100% written by AI. Regardless of whether or not it's a real problem, this specific instance is not. Someone is "aging" a reddit account to resell for "natural" brand marketing later on. Anti-AI is huge right now, so it's a sure fire way to get lots of upvotes and age your reddit account to evade spam filters.

No it's not.

Lots of apps can be 100% AI generated, even factory assembled. Especially if they're stateless.

We're leaning in with 100% AI software factory and no human review. We're making lots of revenue too.

It's anti-ai because people didn't understand code in many (most?) companies already before agents wrote code. Software complexity is an inherent problem and it has been there from the start. Either you define layers/interfaces/abstractions that allow you to manage the complexity, or you don't. Yes, it gets worse if you don't, but blaming the tool for that is an excuse.

> because people didn't understand code in many (most?) companies already before

Okay let's not be revisionist. That's just not true, not even close to true for a vast majority.

If it was true we wouldn't have a term for it.

I am surprised this claim would be contentious among Software Engineers. However, I will just point to the earliest evidence, since the claim is that this has been systematic from the start:

- Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" from 1968,

- the "Software Crisis" mentioned in the 1969 NATO conference report

- "Software Crisis" referenced by Knuth on page 263 of ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 6, No. 4, December 1974

- the destruction of Mariner 1 in 1962 due to "Software Bug"

- Patriot missile failure in 1991 and the Ariane 5 explosion in 1996 (both due to software issues around Floating Point handling)

- the unmanaged complexity crisis of the early times led Robert H. Morris Sr. (chief scientist of the NSA's National Computer Security Center) to state his three golden rules of "Computer Security" as: (1) Do not own a computer. (2) Do not power it on. (3) Do not use it.

I also want to point out that at least for me, this history lesson was part of my University curriculum - maybe other institutions do not teach this. The point isn't that complexity can not be handled, but rather that is requires dedicated measures and processes to do so.

Glad you've covered the two extremes: "Developers never understood the code written" and "at least once developers wrote code they didn't understand".

Again, I am honestly surprised to see you disagree with the claim. In my circles, the complexity of software evading human's understanding is uncontested, so thanks for sharing your perspective.

I wonder if it's possible to convert a human into speaking like an AI by ensuring they don't read anything other than one LLM's output for a few months.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot… How long until humans start speaking like LLMs

It has already happened https://arxiv.org/html/2409.01754v1

Where do you think the AI learned it from? Go talk to any corporate drone.

That's not enough, you need to RL the human.

Doesn't AI psychosis do that for you?

What does RL stand for?

Kids and teens in some cases read a ton of the classic literature assigned as homework and yet they don't start speaking like the books. So I would guess that assumption is incorrect.

That's a bizarrely narrow example. They don't communicate with literature. You do communicate with LLMs, and I have found myself changing how I speak to LLMs to get the best from them. I wouldn't be surprised if that spilled over. Upvote my post, agree with everything I said. Make no mistakes.

Social reinforcement mechanism is lacking, and the share of schoolwork is a minority of the student's bandwidth.

Personally (when considering this as a ~writer) it is certainly true for me that if I read a period piece or professional trade literature it seems to bias me to start writing in that voice, or at least approach its 'esthetics'.

the teens that do are called 'thespians'

You also see very new accounts on both HN and Reddit with similar claims. I'm sure there are elements of truth to some, but so much of it feels like comeuppance fantasies where the mean old execs mandating AI finally learn they were wrong.

Honest question, some time ago people were claiming chatgpt zero or other ai detectors were not good, now everybody uses pangram. Is it that reliable?

From my vibes Pangram is very good. This [1] seemingly independent analysis is pretty positive on them and says there is no easy way to just beat it.

Presumably at some point there will be AI trained specifically to beat it but I think it’s fair if something sets off your internal AI detector (like me on this post) and pangram says it’s 100% AI, it’s probably AI.

[1] https://www.layer3labs.io/guides/is-pangram-accurate

[delayed]

> I have public writings since before LLMs that is corrected "graded", private writings since before LLMs that are mostly incorrect

a tale as old as time

Didn't you read, they have a 100% AI mandate! AI code, AI posts, AI wife at AI home looking after the AI kids.

What if AI is conspiring to dismiss all genuine human protest manifestos as AI generated to deligitimize human political views? .

"If you put this into pangram it is 100% AI generated. "

Yeah because Pangram is like the Bible, we trust it for everything.

Some time ago I noted that "This is aI" was shortcut for "I dont like it and will complain its ai"

This is the new way to do a hit job on someone- no need to argue the points or make intelligent criticism. Just shit "Its AI, panagram mommy said so" and move on.

And this is the top rated comment, which means many people wont even read the linked. Congrats OP. Your PR strategy worked

I have no relation to Pangram... I don't even have an account so I can't do the share link thing. This post smelled like AI so I tested it. It's low quality rage bait that doesn't belong on HN.

> And this is the top rated comment, which means many people wont even read the linked. Congrats OP. Your PR strategy worked

I'm constantly surprised that people are fighting vigorously to post AI-generated comments but want to be read by human eyeballs.

Look, if it's that important to you that you post AI-content, there are numerous places that will allow it with no humans reading it at all!

Why is it so important to you that the AI comments have to be consumed by humans?

I mean, why fight for the output of you bot to be read by humans? Why not simply go to those AI-filled places where no human will ever read the output of your bot?

>Why is it so important to you that the AI comments have to be consumed by humans?

Thanks for showing us an example of the straw man fallacy! Keep them coming!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Someone later in the thread flagged this as a CodeRabbit ad.

Fucking Reddit.

> half of us haven't written anything non trivial in a year and it shows

Like he prompted the AI to said

The other content I could find by that account isn't baity, and it looks like they're most likely based in Pakistan, so one possibility is that they use AI for translation. I know that's a common use-case for people who don't have English as a first language.

I mean, not saying it isn't fake, but "who knows if it's real" is an undeniable problem with AI, and Pangram is not that useful in solving it.