There's a clear pattern, though. The document is blatantly AI-generated,
and I believe that the author acknowledged it as such ("the model was
confirmed as trained on 9front sources"); even if it wasn't, the logical
mistakes it makes are of a type humans don't generally make.The author has many posts that _all_ feature A.I. art. The arguments they make have no connection to the premises, although in fairness that's a hallmark of bad human writing too. The sources cited have no connection to the arguments being made. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone who is clearly relying so heavily on LLMs might be doing so on the mailing list when so many of their posts clearly resemble LLM output. Hell, even if they're not using an LLM, if someone is writing with the _quality_ of an LLM, they're not worth engaging with. "This horrible spam-looking content was actually written by a person!" is not a great defense. - Noam Preil ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Te051f230f2656bbb-M50b020de4168865f586f0fdb Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
