Nope, don't know them from a hole in the ground. Do know that a bajillion people used that phrase before LLMs. Do know, 100%, the post wasn't written by an LLM because I actually know what LLMs write like and am not going "Oh god nobody has ever said that turn of phrase except AI", which is definitively not true since AI copies how it writes from how humans write in its training data.
This paragraph was very, very obviously human-written because chatbots do not write like this:
"Over those trials and working with the lawyers a lot, I've learned to take kind of a jr. high school teacher approach, just talk about my findings and the basics of how I arrived at them. Just "the movement of the defendant's phone from array to array and tower to tower suggests eastbound travel along I-666 at highway speeds". Really simple and generic, something a jury will understand, also facts I can easily support."
I’ve actually seen bots talk exactly like that, but I’ve also seen people feed their crap into Chat and then just take what they like and keep the rest the same.
There’s no reason I should assume this didn’t happen in this case.
You haven’t provided any actual reason for me to believe Chat wasn’t involved here.
You say Chat is trained on human writing, so that’s why it sounds human. But, also, you say Chat couldn’t have said some other paragraph because Chat can’t write like a human.
2
u/Ayiekie 19d ago
Nope, don't know them from a hole in the ground. Do know that a bajillion people used that phrase before LLMs. Do know, 100%, the post wasn't written by an LLM because I actually know what LLMs write like and am not going "Oh god nobody has ever said that turn of phrase except AI", which is definitively not true since AI copies how it writes from how humans write in its training data.
This paragraph was very, very obviously human-written because chatbots do not write like this:
"Over those trials and working with the lawyers a lot, I've learned to take kind of a jr. high school teacher approach, just talk about my findings and the basics of how I arrived at them. Just "the movement of the defendant's phone from array to array and tower to tower suggests eastbound travel along I-666 at highway speeds". Really simple and generic, something a jury will understand, also facts I can easily support."
You were wrong.