▲ 17 points
back
12 comments
Link to the analysis this article is based on: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wRNJZz2iYrfDaSDdz/claude-aut....
It would make more sense to compare the encyclical to other writings by Robert Prevost than to other encyclicals.
Is this ironic?
> Three common and well-known tells in AI writing — sometimes genuinely deployed by humans but nowhere their profligate use by AI — are the regularity of em-dashes, the high frequency of specific words like “genuinely”, and the tendency to repeatedly invoke tricolons.
The em-dash tell makes sense for things like personal technical blogs, usually written by a non-professional writer, and without extensive editing.
It doesn't work so well for things that are professionally written and edited, in my opinion. I saw a similar statement in a thread about an nytimes article.
Em-dashes were not invented by AI, publications used them before, it's not strange that someone whose job is to write will use them, and its not strange that something professionally edited may have em-dashes added to it. It's only a tell when someone who has never before used one before (or is not likely to have ever used one before) suddenly starts throwing them around like candy.
This is humor.
Honestly, this link is better than the link in the OP. At least there's substance in it.
I'd like for someone who's fluent in English in Italian to take a crack at comparing the two versions though. There may be more clues there
From the source article linked in other comments which is a nice read:
> Different sections of the encyclical have very different rates of apparent AI usage. This indicates to me that some cardinals used AI assistance for this encyclical and many (probably including Pope Leo himself) don’t.
So... no, the Pope did not and was never in question...
The main post is a very poor article in the 'we're just asking questions' style with clickbait title.
I would even say main post is an AI generated summary
Humans mirror. We subconsciously use the style of authors we read just like we subconsciously use our parents’ speech patterns. If the majority of text is now created with LLMs, how do we expect humans not to sound like LLMs?
Considering that LLMs output simultaneously becomes more human-sounding, you’d either have to continuously run what you write through various detectors and keep changing it or you must resign to inevitably be called an LLM at some point.
One of the most problematic aspects of this technology in human society is precisely that—not that it absolves us of having to spend effort and be creative, but that if you do apply work someone will easily and legitimately claim that it’s all machine output and you deserve no appreciation for it.
Betteridge's law at play. If they genuinely had a story, there'd be no question mark at the end of the headline.
Even if he did so what? It doesn't say "never use AI".
This reminds me of Francesca Gino, a Harvard Business School behavioral science professor specialized in "honesty", who was fired by Harvard for falsifying data in her research.
How so? This is someone speculating about the Pope using AI. That doesn't mean he did.