Rendered at 15:02:58 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
chmod775 1 hours ago [-]
Models have proclivities, and many people use the same model.
Imagine all books on earth were written by just 5 people - and worse, they could not remember what they had written yesterday. You would quickly get tired of reading the same flourishes and patterns over and over.
Whatever style models currently in use have, that's what people are going to be tired of, and it's what they're going to recognize as "AI".
sejje 1 hours ago [-]
I predict by the end of the year they'll have a style/voice selector for responses.
You can already do that in your agents.md file, of course, or ask for a re-write and dodge the sameness.
wat10000 1 minutes ago [-]
Trouble is, it’s still the same model, just with a request to sound different. It can only go so far. It’s much like asking an author to imitate the style of another author. They might do a decent job of it but they’ll never match perfectly. And that’s for humans who can actually learn. LLMs can’t.
wongarsu 57 minutes ago [-]
The most difficult thing in doing it yourself is knowing what to ask for. I can ask my model to talk like a caveman or like a Baltic pirate. But asking for something more nuanced, in the range of regular speech, requires the correct lingo
I'm sure it's trivial for somebody who has studied communication or contemporary linguistics, just as it's trivial for me to ask an LLM for tenant-isolation using row-level security in an app
jamesponddotco 16 minutes ago [-]
I gave Claude several pieces of writing from myself, from notes to code comments to iMessage messages with my wife[1], and asked it to write skills that match my voice. I also incorporated the humanizer[2] skill into it.
Worked like a charm. This is the prompt I used[3] to write a version for the company I own with my wife, if it helps anyone. The personal version, which lead to the `jamenizer` skill, is very similar, but has some personal details in it.
Is your wife truly on board with you feeding all of your private conversations into a cloud so that you can optimize yourself out of existence?
ndriscoll 39 minutes ago [-]
You could try taking a body of your own writing and asking it to characterize it/come up with a prompt (or fine tune if you can) describing your style and quirks.
techjamie 23 minutes ago [-]
This is usually what I've had luck with. I've given it samples of my writing and told it to emulate my style. It did help, but it took some charistics of my speech and cranked them up to 10. I guess in hindsight I could have mentioned for it to take my writing quirks it finds and only apply them in moderation.
Reading what I did get out of it was just a bit uncanny valley strangely enough. Very much had some "hey there fellow kids" energy.
CharlesW 39 minutes ago [-]
> I'm sure it's trivial for somebody who has studied communication or contemporary linguistics…
But you know what you like, and you know what bothers you, and the good news is that you don't have to one-shot a solution. You can create a skill and refine it over time. As you test and/or use it, identify copy you don't like and tell the LLM what you prefer instead, and ask it to distill and generalize that feedback into the skill.
nekusar 19 minutes ago [-]
"Write this thing, in the style of $author"
That works right now.
hypfer 17 minutes ago [-]
Why would one leave writing to the clanker though, given that expression is literally the only thing worth doing as a human?
They're supposed to do the grunt work, but the meaning and the connection is a humans-only thing.
I was excited with the idea then got to the first example and boy that was bad. The second "de-slopped" version has no formatting and is 3 times bigger with the same level of information. This model slopmaxxxed the slop.
anilgulecha 2 hours ago [-]
What's with the very distracting cursors of others?
erikkannike 14 minutes ago [-]
Sorry - I've been playing with WebRTC and Trystero (https://trystero.dev/) and added it to my blog as an experiment. Of course didn't expect my blog to become a bit popular on HN and for the cursors to be super annoying. Turned them off by default!
RonanSoleste 1 hours ago [-]
I don't understand why this is a feature and what it brings other than shout "you are being watched by random others".
Exited the site before ending the first block.
maven29 2 hours ago [-]
The ancients brought us "reading mode" in browsers as an escape hatch for exactly this kind of cruelty
mullenba 2 hours ago [-]
Exactly. I was interested in the article but I don't have time for that nonsense.
markgavalda 2 hours ago [-]
Agreed. In the upper right corner there's a "hide" button that I immediately clicked. Then read (ok, skim read) the article.
HumblyTossed 1 hours ago [-]
Agreed. Just because you _can_ do a thing, doesn't mean you should.
2bird3 1 hours ago [-]
All it is missing now is a chat and a friend/follow feature.....
jmusall 2 hours ago [-]
There's a "hide" button in the top right corner
awestroke 2 hours ago [-]
Nobody knows what it means, but it's provocative. It gets the people going
Almondsetat 2 hours ago [-]
going... away?
BSOhealth 48 minutes ago [-]
for https://slopwash.com I’ve started approaching this more as an eval problem than something to go post-training for. I’m excited to be trying these new Jev-type models in more of a harnessed approach. maybe some heavy LLM to measure preservation of intent
jwr 42 minutes ago [-]
Why kill the em dashes? They are a legitimate mark — one that I have been using for years. On a Mac, you quickly get used to pressing shift-option-hyphen. Em dashes are typographically correct and should be used.
LelouBil 3 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
literalAardvark 40 minutes ago [-]
Because no one knows what those are, and they're a major indicator of AI writing.
vsl 12 minutes ago [-]
> they're a major indicator of AI writing.
For the illiterate, sure. Where do you think LLMs picked them up from?
ahmedfromtunis 38 minutes ago [-]
Or at least match the pre-llm human usage frequency.
A total, artificial lack of em dashes can in itself be perceived as another sign of AI writing.
f311a 51 minutes ago [-]
Why would you support this sort of projects?
LLM text should be spottable for as long as possible, otherwise human communication and expression on the internet will be killed.
squidbeak 39 minutes ago [-]
In what sense will it be killed? I don't plan to stop writing my own messages or notes, just because AI can write, and I seriously doubt many other people who prefer their own voices will change either.
chownie 31 minutes ago [-]
I stopped using reddit entirely because it's bots talking to other bots on threads posted by bots, I stopped making posts at the start of this year because I no longer know if a human being is ever reading them. I then deleted the account.
I am increasingly feeling that way about HN, too. If this is all the equivalent of a videogame conversation with an AI, why am I bothering to put the effort in?
f311a 35 minutes ago [-]
Well, imagine that 90% of the comments on HN are generated and it's very hard to spot it. Would you read them?
ndriscoll 28 minutes ago [-]
Are they interesting, well thought out, well articulated, and insightful?
> Are they interesting, well thought out, well articulated, and insightful?
The average AI post is likely a carbon copied reddit comment from 2011, that is to say, "no".
ndriscoll 16 minutes ago [-]
Then either they're easy to spot, or the human ones are equally low-value.
chownie 3 minutes ago [-]
I would love if it could be a false dichotomy, but given conservative estimates pin about 30% of online posts to AI it seems like there may be a third outcome: we patch the visible holes of humans posting less and less by making the bots post more.
The end result is that comment sections aren't enticing to join in on, just read. Which is perfect for ad impressions.
konart 31 minutes ago [-]
Imagine that 90% of the comments on HN are generated and it's very hard to spot it. And you read them.
Fe2O3 5 minutes ago [-]
Why are lists of three considered slop? I genuinely use it quite a bit because groups of three feel more memorable, satisfying, and persuasive. (<- list of three right there)
bschwarz 43 minutes ago [-]
and needs no system prompt
A human would write "and doesn't need a system prompt."
charv 1 hours ago [-]
Side note but the multi-user cursors was a super cool feature, not sure it was relevant to this article but would love to see it on more interactive pieces (a la The Pudding, etc.)
It's definitely a slight improvement, but it is still rather obvious that the output is AI-written :(
mrweasel 58 minutes ago [-]
The tell tell sign for me is that it's still incredibly hard to read. AI tend to write in a style that I'm unable to easily read (humans does that as well sometimes). I constantly have to go back and re-read the previous sentence, because the text simply doesn't register.
A next step I'd suggest is asking the LLM to use shorter words when available.
LLMs as a word generator love generating words, and that includes generating bigger words when simpler ones will do.
mochizou 13 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
ac2u 2 hours ago [-]
Is it still capable of writing an essay about AI writing tics or has the very means of producing said tics, even when the model is asked to do so to demonstrate, now abitterated?
nathants 13 minutes ago [-]
how are bite sized models going to solve bad writing?
sram1337 31 minutes ago [-]
Have you released the detector?
whythismatters 19 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Royce-CMR 1 hours ago [-]
Applause earned. Neat results especially out of such a small model.
Separately we have overlap between AI slop styles and right for the situation writing styles which this highlights.
Using the new CRM example, the clean version looks like a millennial student who rambled on a page, and the AI slop version looks like a draft I could send for PR to corporate managers. I buy the former looks more real, but it also looks sloppy and doesn’t work for most of my use cases.
When I was in school, the structured essay style of the “slop” examples was encouraged and I see it continue to resonate in corporate. The cleaned up versions here def have use cases - reviews for example.
Main point - different styles for different situations and our AI slop versions vs humanized versions both overlap different areas of the “ideal” we continue to look for.
swiftcoder 1 hours ago [-]
Impressed how little hardware is needed to train this.
hashmap 1 hours ago [-]
I saw those moving dots and snap-closed the page.
10111001 50 minutes ago [-]
Now can I have a model with the AI writing tics trained to the max?
I want my boss to know I'm a Good Boy using AI.
Izmaki 45 minutes ago [-]
You can definitely get far with skills and personal instructions. That is my estimate, not research.
(*defeated chuckles and gazes towards my Claude session*)
j45 23 minutes ago [-]
This still scores as 100% AI generated on tools like pangram.com.
It stil contains a triple construction, but ranks much cleaner on slop-cop.
Imagine all books on earth were written by just 5 people - and worse, they could not remember what they had written yesterday. You would quickly get tired of reading the same flourishes and patterns over and over.
Whatever style models currently in use have, that's what people are going to be tired of, and it's what they're going to recognize as "AI".
You can already do that in your agents.md file, of course, or ask for a re-write and dodge the sameness.
I'm sure it's trivial for somebody who has studied communication or contemporary linguistics, just as it's trivial for me to ask an LLM for tenant-isolation using row-level security in an app
Worked like a charm. This is the prompt I used[3] to write a version for the company I own with my wife, if it helps anyone. The personal version, which lead to the `jamenizer` skill, is very similar, but has some personal details in it.
[1]: With her permission, obviously.
[2]: https://github.com/blader/humanizer
[3]: https://paste.sr.ht/~jamesponddotco/303a18228bcd8520e55a76d5...
Reading what I did get out of it was just a bit uncanny valley strangely enough. Very much had some "hey there fellow kids" energy.
But you know what you like, and you know what bothers you, and the good news is that you don't have to one-shot a solution. You can create a skill and refine it over time. As you test and/or use it, identify copy you don't like and tell the LLM what you prefer instead, and ask it to distill and generalize that feedback into the skill.
That works right now.
They're supposed to do the grunt work, but the meaning and the connection is a humans-only thing.
For the illiterate, sure. Where do you think LLMs picked them up from?
A total, artificial lack of em dashes can in itself be perceived as another sign of AI writing.
I am increasingly feeling that way about HN, too. If this is all the equivalent of a videogame conversation with an AI, why am I bothering to put the effort in?
https://xkcd.com/810/
The average AI post is likely a carbon copied reddit comment from 2011, that is to say, "no".
The end result is that comment sections aren't enticing to join in on, just read. Which is perfect for ad impressions.
A next step I'd suggest is asking the LLM to use shorter words when available.
Separately we have overlap between AI slop styles and right for the situation writing styles which this highlights.
Using the new CRM example, the clean version looks like a millennial student who rambled on a page, and the AI slop version looks like a draft I could send for PR to corporate managers. I buy the former looks more real, but it also looks sloppy and doesn’t work for most of my use cases.
When I was in school, the structured essay style of the “slop” examples was encouraged and I see it continue to resonate in corporate. The cleaned up versions here def have use cases - reviews for example.
Main point - different styles for different situations and our AI slop versions vs humanized versions both overlap different areas of the “ideal” we continue to look for.
I want my boss to know I'm a Good Boy using AI.
(*defeated chuckles and gazes towards my Claude session*)
It stil contains a triple construction, but ranks much cleaner on slop-cop.