Second time I've been accused of using AI to compose posts. Should I be insulted or flattered?

[Spice_Weasel]

@Sylvanz

I didn’t mean actual AI. I meant people accusing others of using AI when they aren’t. Similar to strawmaning or other logical fallacies.

I agree that is intellectually dishonest.

But it raises a question for me. Is it okay not to engage with the content of a post if we think it is LLM-generated? That is, are we justified in treating it differently than how we treat posts made by humans? Should we be careful not to accuse people of using LLMs because of the possibility they are posting original content?

Also, I’m pretty confident I could trounce someone’s LLM-generated argument. I’m just not sure it would be worth it.

[abcdefghij]

@Spice_Weasel

But it raises a question for me. Is it okay not to engage with the content of a post if we think it is LLM-generated?

I choose not to engage with content I assume to be human-generated all the time. Why should bots get special treatment?

[puzzlegal]

@Rilchiam

Note: both of these instances were on Reddit. I’m not sure what the first accusation was based on, but today, apparently my “tell” was that I used emdashes.

For the record, I have never used ChatGPT or any AI, ever. Today, I think the accuser just didn’t care for my observations, but the first time was really out of nowhere. Still, there’s something in the context of “Your post is obviously AI!” that reads to me like, “I can’t write that good, so you must be cheating.” Anyone else ever have this happen?

Urk. It’s definitely not a compliment. AI generated content is dull as dishwater, and not something i enjoy reading.

That being said, your post here doesn’t trigger my AI-dar even a little.