Rendered at 11:01:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
BobbyTables2 8 hours ago [-]
Some people are just very robotic.
Today I spent 20 minutes in a call to customer support. The representative spoke so robotic-ally (both cadence and word choice), I was extremely confident they were an AI for the first 15 minutes. Was quite certain the automated AI had transferred me to a more advanced one…
Turns out they were just likely in a low cost Latin American country and trying really hard. I felt bad one could be reduced to such…
userbinator 7 hours ago [-]
Probably more like "some jobs are just very robotic". CSRs aren't paid to think for themselves, but rather to follow a script. I suspect that human would behave a lot more like a human outside of work.
BoxOfRain 2 minutes ago [-]
Yeah I worked in an inbound call centre one summer as a student, and I disliked it for that reason. You'd get angry customers yelling at you going 'why can't you do anything other than your script' and you're just sacked if you do anything else. You develop a skin as thick as a hippo and just plough on with it, since you're not actually empowered to do much that would help the customer.
People were all very human the second the phone was put down, though everyone smoked like chimney myself included. You kind of have to if you're being screamed at all day by random members of the public. Also to this day I am extremely polite and patient with people in inbound call centres! I suspect the world would have infinitely better manners if everyone was required to do a year in some customer service role.
FL410 6 hours ago [-]
Oh it gets worse. Apparently Comcast is now using a voice-changing AI - it's a real (probably Latin or Asian) person getting their voice replaced on-the-fly to sound "American."
DylanMerigaud 5 hours ago [-]
Structure alone can differentiate AI content, interesting approach.
asdff 17 hours ago [-]
The idea is interesting but in looking at methods and github I feel the tooling leaves me wanting. I mean you are trusting LLMs here to establish, vet, and detect your various thresholds that were then used to train the classifier. I'd rather see this sort of thing done deterministically with actual code vs lossy human english prompts and a dependency on token spend to a single third party (who will probably pull the underlying model used in what a few short years probably) to replicate the results or try and use different training data.
15 hours ago [-]
bryanrasmussen 14 hours ago [-]
The idea is that AI slop is non-creative boring crap, to really determine if you are able to identify AI slop then it should be determined if you misidentify human slop as AI slop.
Idea 1: Identify the worst most boring human marketing, organizational, bureaucratic texts from the a time before AI was writing it, anonymize this text to make sure there is no reference to current events that can be used to determine that it is not AI. And then see if the AI will say hey, that is not AI slop.
Idea 2: Have people parody AI slop. Can it determine the parody is still not AI slop?
qurren 11 hours ago [-]
Personally I don't actually care if it's human slop or AI slop. If it's slop it's slop and I don't want to read it.
The amount of slop on the internet was on the rise well before AI, actually.
beepbooptheory 13 hours ago [-]
Do you have an opinion on this point about identifying larger structures as tells instead of at more of a word level? I guess I am not sure here how this follows from what is posted?
bryanrasmussen 6 hours ago [-]
I don't think I said anything about word level?
The 12% of human posts that do what AI do in repeating things, are they human slop?
I personally don't think it is possible to identify human and AI, it is however probably more possible to identify unoriginal and boring quality writing and art.
This was perhaps not clear from my first post, as I tend to imply points rather than tediously stating them.
beepbooptheory 1 hours ago [-]
It's just that you are not actually engaging with the post you are replying to in any meaningful way.
Like its fine if you hold a blanket dismissal of the very premise of the research here, but then its kinda weird to spend such effort being grumpy about it in this particular context?
Its like finding a paper that does certain comparative work between different kinds of apple pie and choosing to come on here and be like "I don't think we should ever have any dessert either way!"
pooploop64 17 hours ago [-]
Is the goal of this to help AI pick corn kernels out of it's own shit for the purposes of slightly raising the bar on how sloppy the slop is? Or are you trying to trick AIs into eating a higher amount of their own shit than they already are? This feels like a factory built specifically to manufacture pollution.
Of course, it's impossible to know for sure what was LLM processed or not, but some of your posts (like this one) have been getting classified that way.
jumploops 14 hours ago [-]
Funnily enough, that comment, when passed to the OP's slop detector[0], returns "80% human"
It's very clearly AI-generated, and thus a bit ironic (:
Maybe they ran it through OP's de-sloppifier to see how well it works. And look how well it did! The slop detector doesn't suspect a thing! I can already smell the value this thing is adding to the world.
Today I spent 20 minutes in a call to customer support. The representative spoke so robotic-ally (both cadence and word choice), I was extremely confident they were an AI for the first 15 minutes. Was quite certain the automated AI had transferred me to a more advanced one…
Turns out they were just likely in a low cost Latin American country and trying really hard. I felt bad one could be reduced to such…
People were all very human the second the phone was put down, though everyone smoked like chimney myself included. You kind of have to if you're being screamed at all day by random members of the public. Also to this day I am extremely polite and patient with people in inbound call centres! I suspect the world would have infinitely better manners if everyone was required to do a year in some customer service role.
Idea 1: Identify the worst most boring human marketing, organizational, bureaucratic texts from the a time before AI was writing it, anonymize this text to make sure there is no reference to current events that can be used to determine that it is not AI. And then see if the AI will say hey, that is not AI slop.
Idea 2: Have people parody AI slop. Can it determine the parody is still not AI slop?
The amount of slop on the internet was on the rise well before AI, actually.
The 12% of human posts that do what AI do in repeating things, are they human slop?
I personally don't think it is possible to identify human and AI, it is however probably more possible to identify unoriginal and boring quality writing and art.
This was perhaps not clear from my first post, as I tend to imply points rather than tediously stating them.
Like its fine if you hold a blanket dismissal of the very premise of the research here, but then its kinda weird to spend such effort being grumpy about it in this particular context?
Its like finding a paper that does certain comparative work between different kinds of apple pie and choosing to come on here and be like "I don't think we should ever have any dessert either way!"
Of course, it's impossible to know for sure what was LLM processed or not, but some of your posts (like this one) have been getting classified that way.
It's very clearly AI-generated, and thus a bit ironic (:
[0]https://sitefire.ai/slop-checker/r/UkRAuqW1y-1T2qhbRQfLt2Jq7...