> If there was an adequately reliable way of detecting LLM text

Yes it is and it's not a technical one: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-icons-l...

Exactly, and LLMs cannot describe architectures, period. On the surface it looks coherent, but everything is vague and lacks rigor. Instead of defining concepts and giving them a name, LLMs keep referring to them using vague terms such as "address and key is where the memory is true". What the fuck does that mean? Give each concept a name and explain them.

This has no value because noone can separate what was designed by a human from design details that the LLM made up on the spot. That's fine for one-off generated stuff like web pages, but as a proposed standard for everyone to build on? No.

Hey, author here. I wrote the blog post and of course got assistance by AI to rephrase sections, gather data and do comparison, and make graphics - also because I'm no native english speaker and wanted to improve the writing.

The sections, points, ideas are by me :)

Thought the same thing and was surprised how high this was ranking. I wonder if we are starting to look past the LLM stank and into the core of the idea (which is solid in this case)? If HN, a highly discerning crowd, is able to look past it then many other audiences are probably okay with it too

Hopefully there's also going to be a browser extension to filter out people complaining about LLMs.

That would be great. Or, for the physical world, combining some kind of smart glasses with the new Pangram image detection which seems to work well on rephotographed data. Like the _They Live_ glasses.

At what point we just start hating LLM because it is LLM?

Honestly I do not care if article was written letter by letter by human or written by agent steered by human.

I care about knowledge and quality, it it is there then it doesn't matter how was it written. I too hate LLM slop but I understand that not everything done by LLM have to be slop.