Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
23 Posts 20 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

    At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

    When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

    I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

    So, I feel that we have three choices:

    1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

    2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

    3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

    lmk@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
    lmk@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
    lmk@infosec.exchange
    wrote last edited by
    #6

    @lcamtuf Only half? Seriously, I'd tweak your #1 to make it less dependent on detecting LLM writing [1] and alter the condition to include quality [2]. If the writing is well written AND makes a good point I'd say it's worthwhile.
    I doubt there's much of this at all today, but why would it be so bad if it became a thing?
    NOTES: [1] this isn't easy to detect accurate by software (and will get harder) and manually time consuming, plus false positives would be a loss.
    [2] Low quality writing (LLM of human) is best avoided and can be detected quickly and accurately.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

      At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

      When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

      I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

      So, I feel that we have three choices:

      1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

      2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

      3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

      mojala@mementomori.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
      mojala@mementomori.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
      mojala@mementomori.social
      wrote last edited by
      #7

      @lcamtuf If you can afford an off the grid cabin why wouldn’t already be there

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

        At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

        When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

        I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

        So, I feel that we have three choices:

        1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

        2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

        3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

        jztusk@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
        jztusk@mastodon.socialJ This user is from outside of this forum
        jztusk@mastodon.social
        wrote last edited by
        #8

        @lcamtuf

        I don't have to *prove* something is LLM-produced to conclude "this writer didn't bother to make sure that their writing clearly isn't LLM", and then yeet them permanently into the "don't bother" list.

        dalias@hachyderm.ioD 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

          At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

          When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

          I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

          So, I feel that we have three choices:

          1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

          2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

          3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

          fritzadalis@infosec.exchangeF This user is from outside of this forum
          fritzadalis@infosec.exchangeF This user is from outside of this forum
          fritzadalis@infosec.exchange
          wrote last edited by
          #9

          @lcamtuf
          You're probably a chainsaw vs. telephone pole away from #3.

          lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

            At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

            When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

            I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

            So, I feel that we have three choices:

            1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

            2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

            3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

            astrid@tiny.tilde.websiteA This user is from outside of this forum
            astrid@tiny.tilde.websiteA This user is from outside of this forum
            astrid@tiny.tilde.website
            wrote last edited by
            #10

            @lcamtuf when i notice something is untagged LLM output posing as human authorship, i back out and issue all the negative feedback signals i have access to

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

              At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

              When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

              I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

              So, I feel that we have three choices:

              1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

              2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

              3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

              owoday@social.seattle.wa.usO This user is from outside of this forum
              owoday@social.seattle.wa.usO This user is from outside of this forum
              owoday@social.seattle.wa.us
              wrote last edited by
              #11

              @lcamtuf honestly it reminds me of this study https://people.psych.ucsb.edu/gazzaniga/PDF/Language%20after%20section%20of%20the%20cerebral%20commissueres%20(1967).pdf

              They seperate the sides of the brain and try to communicate with them individually.

              > when an object was placed in the left hand (right hemisphere sensing it), the speaking left hemisphere fabricated a verbal explanation for why the patient was holding it

              Later studies (60s so could be horseshit) worked with a theory of one side being more of an interpreter.

              owoday@social.seattle.wa.usO 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • owoday@social.seattle.wa.usO owoday@social.seattle.wa.us

                @lcamtuf honestly it reminds me of this study https://people.psych.ucsb.edu/gazzaniga/PDF/Language%20after%20section%20of%20the%20cerebral%20commissueres%20(1967).pdf

                They seperate the sides of the brain and try to communicate with them individually.

                > when an object was placed in the left hand (right hemisphere sensing it), the speaking left hemisphere fabricated a verbal explanation for why the patient was holding it

                Later studies (60s so could be horseshit) worked with a theory of one side being more of an interpreter.

                owoday@social.seattle.wa.usO This user is from outside of this forum
                owoday@social.seattle.wa.usO This user is from outside of this forum
                owoday@social.seattle.wa.us
                wrote last edited by
                #12

                @lcamtuf personally I think humans have a critical vulnerability in the interaction of being handed a completely plausible thought, whether encoded as speech/electrical signals/vision that once holding it will invent reasons why it is correct. That or we are just lazy haven't decided

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                  At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                  When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                  I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                  So, I feel that we have three choices:

                  1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                  2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                  3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                  mikesiegel@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mikesiegel@infosec.exchangeM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mikesiegel@infosec.exchange
                  wrote last edited by
                  #13

                  @lcamtuf 4) Reply "That's a good post, but I think a more valid point would be if you could go ahead and calculate this double SHA256 hash with a bunch of leading zeros" ?

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  0
                  • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
                  • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                    At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                    When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                    I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                    So, I feel that we have three choices:

                    1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                    2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                    3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                    sikorsky78@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                    sikorsky78@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                    sikorsky78@infosec.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #14

                    @lcamtuf 3

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                      At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                      When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                      I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                      So, I feel that we have three choices:

                      1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                      2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                      3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                      ruslan@infosec.exchangeR This user is from outside of this forum
                      ruslan@infosec.exchangeR This user is from outside of this forum
                      ruslan@infosec.exchange
                      wrote last edited by
                      #15

                      @lcamtuf You chose the combination of 3) AND ... ??? 😁

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
                      • fritzadalis@infosec.exchangeF fritzadalis@infosec.exchange

                        @lcamtuf
                        You're probably a chainsaw vs. telephone pole away from #3.

                        lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                        lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL This user is from outside of this forum
                        lcamtuf@infosec.exchange
                        wrote last edited by
                        #16

                        @FritzAdalis I have Starlink on the roof, but I guess it wouldn't be hard to shoot it off...

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                          At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                          When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                          I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                          So, I feel that we have three choices:

                          1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                          2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                          3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                          dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                          dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                          dalias@hachyderm.io
                          wrote last edited by
                          #17

                          @lcamtuf I don't engage with that shit even when humans write it. I'm sure as hell not engaging when they didn't even bother.

                          regehr@mastodon.socialR 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • jztusk@mastodon.socialJ jztusk@mastodon.social

                            @lcamtuf

                            I don't have to *prove* something is LLM-produced to conclude "this writer didn't bother to make sure that their writing clearly isn't LLM", and then yeet them permanently into the "don't bother" list.

                            dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                            dalias@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                            dalias@hachyderm.io
                            wrote last edited by
                            #18

                            @jztusk @lcamtuf This. If they're not saying anything that *couldn't have been interpolated from existing Orange Site drivel*, I don't much care if a human spent time slopping it together manually or used an LLM for it. Either way it's not reflecting any genuine thought and not worth reading.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • dalias@hachyderm.ioD dalias@hachyderm.io

                              @lcamtuf I don't engage with that shit even when humans write it. I'm sure as hell not engaging when they didn't even bother.

                              regehr@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                              regehr@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                              regehr@mastodon.social
                              wrote last edited by
                              #19

                              @dalias @lcamtuf it's making me read a lot fewer think pieces, that's for sure

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                                At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                                When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                                I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                                So, I feel that we have three choices:

                                1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                                2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                                3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                                helge@mas.toH This user is from outside of this forum
                                helge@mas.toH This user is from outside of this forum
                                helge@mas.to
                                wrote last edited by
                                #20

                                @lcamtuf When someone needs genAI to express themselves, they aren't. They do not - by their own unconscious admission - have anything to add. They do not have an original thought, nor created something beyond a vague concept. Their input is, in its current form, useless.

                                Until now, those people just wouldn't express themselves at length. We could smile, shrug, and remain friends. Pretend they have valuable thoughts.

                                We may have to just stop pretending. But it's rude. Now what?

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                                  At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                                  When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                                  I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                                  So, I feel that we have three choices:

                                  1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                                  2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                                  3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                                  loathsome_dongeater@toots.matapacos.dogL This user is from outside of this forum
                                  loathsome_dongeater@toots.matapacos.dogL This user is from outside of this forum
                                  loathsome_dongeater@toots.matapacos.dog
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #21

                                  @lcamtuf I don't understand the "LLM helped the poor sod whose first language is English express himself" point because every time I read an LLMism like "it is not x, its y" I feel like a part of my soul has been devoured. Bad human-written prose is better than copy-pasting LLM generated text. At that point, the friction of constructing prose which makes your thoughts coherent has been eliminated. No one should waste time reading it.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                                    At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                                    When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                                    I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                                    So, I feel that we have three choices:

                                    1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                                    2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                                    3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                                    kitkat_blue@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                                    kitkat_blue@mastodon.socialK This user is from outside of this forum
                                    kitkat_blue@mastodon.social
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #22

                                    @lcamtuf

                                    "LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed"

                                    fourth choice-- get tf off whatever 💀 hellscape 💀 masquerading as "social" media you're seeing this on!

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • lcamtuf@infosec.exchangeL lcamtuf@infosec.exchange

                                      At this point, LLM-written think pieces make up about half of all long-form writing in my social media feed.

                                      When I push back, I get two reactions. Authors say that it just helps them express themselves. AI promoters say "get used to it".

                                      I don't think we should: it boils down to asymmetry. Our time here is limited. Social interaction on the internet breaks down if it takes ~0 effort to publish, but readers are still expected to use their own eyeballs and brains to engage.

                                      So, I feel that we have three choices:

                                      1) Refuse to engage with LLM writing *no matter if the article makes a good point or not*.

                                      2) Embrace it and have my agent argue with your agent forever, for internet points.

                                      3) Call it quits and move to an off-the-grid cabin in the woods.

                                      atlefren@snabelen.noA This user is from outside of this forum
                                      atlefren@snabelen.noA This user is from outside of this forum
                                      atlefren@snabelen.no
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #23

                                      @lcamtuf option 3 is much more rewarding at least

                                      Link Preview Image
                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      Reply
                                      • Reply as topic
                                      Log in to reply
                                      • Oldest to Newest
                                      • Newest to Oldest
                                      • Most Votes


                                      • Login

                                      • Login or register to search.
                                      • First post
                                        Last post
                                      0
                                      • Categories
                                      • Recent
                                      • Tags
                                      • Popular
                                      • World
                                      • Users
                                      • Groups