I'm not reading this.
I do miss the days when technical reports were clear and concise. This one has some interesting information, but it’s buried under a mountain of empty AI-written bloat.
If I want AI slop, I'll gladly have a chat with my paid $20 bucks Gemini account.
The Wikipedia article on detecting AI writing is a big help if you need to calibrate your sensors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
Maybe, like overplayed pop songs, in 20 years or so we’ll come around to viewing the phrase fondly.
It's a bit of a "Karen AI" telltale sign. It's probably been trained on a lot of "I-know-it-all-Karen" posts and as a result we're bombarded with Karen-slop.
Like this, its purpose is to fly under the radar unless your figurative ears are pricked up and primed to detect the telltale signs. Fuck this shit.
I don't necessarily find a problem with them, but its weird how they boasted about massive scale and importance of this, but then only just went with 8 tests.
If you try and run a site that has content that LLMs want or expensive calls that require a lot of compute and can exhaust resources if they are over used the attack is relentless. It can be a full time job trying to stop people who are dedicated to scrapping the shit out of your site.
Even CF doesnt even really stop it any more. The agent run browsers seem to bypass it with relative ease.
This is wrong. Git does store full copies.
Prebuild statically the most common commits (last XX) and heavily rate limit deeper ones
Another problem I have with it - they state that the red text was such a huge problem, but then their solution is to... Keep only using red? Why not, for example, make certain non-failure notifications yellow or some other color? Surely using other colors should at least be tested as a solution, right? The whole process seems bizarre to me
It doesnt .. look very new?
I can't be the only one.
It's slow and annoying, AI overview is good enough for me most of the times so that added time I bet makes websites lose a lot of visits.
> 5 out of 8 points versus just 3 for "I am human." For the verifying state, it was even more dramatic — 7.5 versus 0.5.
n × p >= 5? (Sample size and margins of errors. Is 5:3 even meaningful or is this rather random personal preference?) Apparent splitting of missing or inconclusive data points? (7.5 vs. 0.5 out of a total of 8 subjects.) What kind of (social) research is this supposed to be?