These people are not domain experts, and they often latch onto structure or happenstance that is quite common (in the overall picture), and anything out of the ordinary they consider AI slop. Its a false justification loop, which breaks their perception.
Around the turn of the last century (1900-1940s), was a time where hyper-rationalism played an important role in winning WW2. Language use in the published works and in academia at that time had words with distinct meanings, they were sometimes uncommon words, but it allowed a rigorous approach to communication.
Today we have words which can have contradictory meanings in different contexts based in ambiguity, where the same word means two things simultaneously without further information. AI often can't handle figuring out the context in these cases, and often hallucinates, whereas the context can in some cases be clear to a discerning human reader.
I've have seen it more than a few times where people have misidentified these clear cut cases of human consistency, as AI generated slop. There is a lot of bias in perception that makes this a common issue.
In my opinion, the exercise of doing this as the article's author suggests, is simply fallacy following a deluded spiral to madness.
Communication is the sharing of a consistent meaning. Consistency plays a big role in that.
People can talk about word counts, frequency, word choices, etc, and in most cases its fallacy, especially when there is consistency in the meaning. They delude themselves, fueling a rather trite delusion that anything that looks different is in fact AI and not a real person.
It is sad that people can be so easily fooled, and false justification is one of the worst forms of self-violation since it warps your perception at a fairly low level.
These people are not domain experts, and they often latch onto structure or happenstance that is quite common (in the overall picture), and anything out of the ordinary they consider AI slop. Its a false justification loop, which breaks their perception.
Around the turn of the last century (1900-1940s), was a time where hyper-rationalism played an important role in winning WW2. Language use in the published works and in academia at that time had words with distinct meanings, they were sometimes uncommon words, but it allowed a rigorous approach to communication.
Today we have words which can have contradictory meanings in different contexts based in ambiguity, where the same word means two things simultaneously without further information. AI often can't handle figuring out the context in these cases, and often hallucinates, whereas the context can in some cases be clear to a discerning human reader.
I've have seen it more than a few times where people have misidentified these clear cut cases of human consistency, as AI generated slop. There is a lot of bias in perception that makes this a common issue.
In my opinion, the exercise of doing this as the article's author suggests, is simply fallacy following a deluded spiral to madness.
Communication is the sharing of a consistent meaning. Consistency plays a big role in that.
People can talk about word counts, frequency, word choices, etc, and in most cases its fallacy, especially when there is consistency in the meaning. They delude themselves, fueling a rather trite delusion that anything that looks different is in fact AI and not a real person.
It is sad that people can be so easily fooled, and false justification is one of the worst forms of self-violation since it warps your perception at a fairly low level.