Hacker News Reader

Comment by BestGuess | Hacker News Reader

Alright let's say that's how it is. How happy would everyone else be if they were treated like that even if they weren't like that? I'd be right miffed and I ain't no einstein. My problem is saying it's a good thing to *remove* options just because some people don't know how to use it. Use that kinda logic for other stuff and you'd paint yourself in a corner with a very angry hornet trapped in it, so not the kind of thing you want to encourage if you assume you'd end up the one trapped. I don't know if my message is comin across right do you get me?

View on HN

What about the patients getting unnecessary treatments? How upset should they be? What about the student expelled for AI plagiarism due to a false reading? These things are unreliable, and despite an infinite amount of caveats there is no way to prevent people from over relying on it. We might as well dunk people in the water to see if they float.

That’s a weird kind of extortion, a demand that we placate a subset of the population to the detriment of others. If a conflict came down to people who understand stats versus those blind to it I would put my money on those who understand stats.

I don't see how that's any different from anything, any tool, any power, any method. Same problem with everything. That's why this don't convince me and just seems like removing things cynically instead of improving it. Seems to me like the company also really don't want its service identified negatively like that and get itself associated with cheaters even if they're the ones selling the cheat identifying, or something like that.

Firstly, this tool cannot be made better than it is due to the nature of its construction, it is completely intrinsic. Secondly, as LLM models improve, as they are guaranteed to do, this tool can only become worse as it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between human and AI written text.

I don't know about neither of those. How is it intrinsic? What stops detection improving just because AI gets better? Assuming it just doesn't become sentient human replica or something I mean AI like this where it's just a language model thing. Plus that's assuming future stuff you can track in the meanwhile and still don't justify "remove it because people dumb and do bad stuff with tool", that'd only justify removing it later as they do get better.

The algorithms are trained on minimizing the difference between what the algorithm produces and what a human produces. The better the algorithms the less the difference. The algorithms are at the point where there is very little difference and it won’t be long until there is no difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com