Comment by sarreph
How would you prove that?
How would you prove that?
I don't need to "prove it", because all I have to do is link this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01754
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01491
https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-short.47/
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06166
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/wzveh_v1
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872
https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-acl.987/
https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.426/
https://aclanthology.org/2025.iwsds-1.37/
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.14.24307373v...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/21522715251379...
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21817
Either they used an LLM to write part of it, or the linguistic mind virus infected them and now they speak a little bit like an LLM.
Relevant excerpt from your own wiki guideline:
"Do not rely too much on your own judgment. [...] if you are an expert user of LLMs and you tag 10 pages as being AI-generated, you've probably falsely accused one editor."
Never accuse people of LLM writing based on short comments, your false positive rate is invariably going to be way too high to be acceptable given the very limited material.
It's just not worth it: Even if you correctly accuse 9/10 times, you are being toxic to that false positive case for basically no gain.
They don't, hence the suspicion instead of a definite assertion. And suspicions are easy, because what are the consequences if it's false? None.
Anyway your comment smells AI generated, I can tell from some of the pixels and seeing quite a few shoops in my time.