There are more tells. Rule of three, short cliche sentences.
> We know how frustrating this is, and we hope you'll give us another look once we have something to show, we’ll save your usernames!
I think it's partly human. But ex:
> Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall.
isn't a natural sentence.
So no evidence at all, and just your need to point out possible LLM where ever you imagine it. You could be an LLM agent.
I think you're spot on. It feels like parts were edited with AI and parts were left alone.
> This isn't just a Digg problem. It's an internet problem. But it hit us harder because trust is the product.
The statement this is making is presumably the crux of the problem (Digg cannot survive without trust!) but it's worded so poorly that it's hard to imagine someone sat down and figured these three sentences were the best way to make the point.
I think anything with the “it’s not X it’s Y” is suspect these days. I cringe when I catch myself doing it.
That sounds like a you problem unconnected with reality.
How is that not a natural sentence? I think people are reading into stuff. That's just good writing.
Could it be generated? Sure. But there aren't the obvious tells you act like there are.
Here's the context:
"We underestimated the gravitational pull of existing platforms. Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall."
It's a mixed metaphor which doesn't make any sense. There are really very few ways in which this can be considered good writing - I guess the grammar is ok even if it is nonsense.
So let's break it down - underestimated the gravitational effects - ok, this is nice, like where it's going talking about these big competitors sucking in users, but then we have the metaphor extended to breaking point:
Network effects are a moat, but not just a moat, they're a wall (which is really not anything like a moat). So which of these 3 things are they, and why are we mixing the metaphors of gravity (pulling in customers), moats (competitive moat) and walls (walled gardens).
It's just all a bit nonsensical and the kind of fuzzy prose that seems superficially impressive without actually saying anything meaningful in which LLMs excel. Go try generating an article from just the heads in this article, and see how similarly it reads.
If you want your gradation to work, the items need to be similar and progressively stronger. That's why it doesn't work. A wall is not "stronger" than a moat. "Not a fence, a rampart" would work.
Compare to the canonical example from Cyrano de Bergerac: ''Tis a rock! ... a peak! ... a cape! -- A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!'
Yes I think that’s another reason this sentence doesn’t work well.
That’s the entire point - network effects are commonly discussed as being a moat (people can’t cross without difficulty) but are actually a wall - people can’t cross and can’t view the other side. Seems simple and straightforward to me.
Isnt a moat and a wall pretty similar in function? They both keep people in or out of an area.
Also werent all "moats" commonly paired with a wall in real life? As in a moat around a castle wall?
In a castle for defence, yes similar in function but not form and often used together not one or the other.
In business metaphors no they are used for different things and also when you create a metaphor you should stick with it, that’s what makes this jarring and weird.
"Network effects aren't just a moat, they're a wall." is a VERY ChatGPT way to write. It's not proof, but the parent is right that this smells a bit of AI writing.
It's also a VERY HUMAN way to write.
I don't care so much about Digg, but the endless "haha, I caught you!" comments annoy me more than the rare actual AI-written content they label.
Not to the same extent at all. If you use ChatGPT for a while, you'll see it writes like that very frequently. Humans do write like that sometimes, but not with anywhere the frequency that ChatGPT does it. That's weak evidence for it being ChatGPT.
So based on your one example, you immediately went ChatGPT! because…?
Suppose ChatGPT uses a semicolon more often than an individual person. On a pageful of comments from many random people, someone using a semicolon doesn't mean they're a bot even if 100% of their comments on that page includes one.
It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you.
If stupid people choose to dehumanize based on stupid rules, that is not my problem.
Screw them. I was writing like that before AI came along, and I won’t change just because it offends their delicate sensibilities.
> It behooves you to not write like that if you don’t want people dehumanizing you.
I have to strongly disagree with you on this. It behooves us (as a species) not to degrade our own manner of speaking and writing simply because of a (possibly temporary) technical anomaly.
In my view, it would be really, really sad to lose expressive punctuation or ways of constructing sentences simply because they're overused by AI.
I, for one, won't be a part of that, and I hope you won't, either.
Your prose is poor so it is no wonder. Half the words you use are superfluous, some are nonsensical, and you beg the question.
Please consider reading the Hacker News community guidelines before you post again: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[dead]
Would now be a good time to point out that I said that "It's not proof" and "weak evidence"? Because that is what I said.
Your next sentence then immediately took it as proof and evidence, so no.
I think a human would have split the "it's not this, it's that" type of sentence into two separate sentences that could be more descriptive. This is a blog post, not a tweet, so there's no length constraint.
If they wanted to keep it to a single sentence, they could have used a a word like "rather" to act as a separator between moat and wall.
The rule of three is a basic writing structure taught to 12 year olds. I know people have given up on even the basics (capitalisation) in recent years but let's not just banish structured writing to "AI".