NAK

This branch seems to count as evidence in favor of my hypothesis.

Certainly! Your point raises a crucial, multifaceted issue that merits deeper examination. It's not just about detection accuracy, it's about the evolving interplay between human intention and algorithmic assistance — a dynamic that resists simple binary classification.

When we delve into the mechanics of modern AI tools, it becomes evident that the boundary between "correction" and "generation" is increasingly porous. Consider the following nuances:

Gradual authorship spectra: Text exists on a continuum — from fully human-crafted prose, to human writing with AI-suggested punctuation, to passages where the AI has restructured entire paragraphs. Detection tools, however, often operate on categorical assumptions that fail to capture this complexity.

The feedback loop phenomenon: Furthermore, as writers internalize AI-suggested patterns — Oxford commas, em dashes, and certain syntactic rhythms — their "human" baseline shifts. This creates a fascinating, almost paradoxical scenario: the more one learns from AI feedback, the more one's unassisted writing may trigger detection algorithms.

Contextual markers vs. stylistic choices: Notably, certain signals — like the increased use of "delve," "testament," or negative parallelism — may reflect genuine stylistic evolution rather than automated generation. It's a testament to how AI influences language culture broadly, not just individual documents.

In conclusion, the challenge you identify is not merely technical but philosophical — forcing us to reconsider what we mean by "authentic" voice in an era of human-AI collaboration. The question, ultimately, is not whether a tool assisted in the writing, but whether the ideas, arguments, and intellectual labor remain genuinely human.

I hope proves helpful! Please let me know if you would like to delve deeper into any specific aspect of these findings, or if you would like me to explore the broader implications for content strategy.

"do a little research" - you do realize that your post would have had just the same educational value but not made you come across as a jerk if you had just left off that first sentence?

Someone should invent a repost function for stories that remain relevant for longer than one day?

Why did you propagate it? Actually that's a rhetorical question and I think you can say "for the joke" in this case, but I think you should have added a second reply with a more thoughtful contribution and different Subject...

But my Subject isn't funny because most cancers are not directly infectious (though some cancers are linked to infectious conditions). Moral hazard time?

I think it's funny because the AIs (including AC, of course) are training the humans to be stupid so they will buy profitable garbage that hurts the customers who bought it and vote for corrupt politicians who will harm the voters who voted for them. In reinforcement terms, shallow, trivial, and I dare say stupid questions get "meaningful" answers while deep questions result in negative reinforcement with increasingly ridiculous hallucinations, falsehoods, and I dare say directed lies. (The directors include Zuck and Musk and Bezos and Xi and f[r]iends, but I doubt any humans will be in the loop for much longer.)

Examples available upon polite request. But there are too many and I bet you can think of plenty of your own without my pitiful human help.

I think the obvious counter to an influx in bug reports / pull requests is to have the first layer of review of bug reports / pull requests to be AI as well.

Final remains humans.

I dunno, if that's how people vote, that's how it should be.

Though there is a big question of how they plan to run a vote with multiple options. I hope it's a Condorcet system to avoid the risk of watering down one side with similar competing options...

To make AC go completely away? Maybe.

Just joking. I meant Firefox, as in "Would I donate money to Firefox for a browser-only VPN?"

The answer is quite clear on this one. No. There are plenty of VPNs in the market and I could buy one if I wanted it, and it would cover my browser, too. But even worse, I actually downloaded Opera to look at the included VPN and concluded it wasn't worth it. Haven't used Opera in a long time now. However as Firefox continues to add unwanted cruft they are increasing the pressure to switch to some other browser. Perhaps Opera?

Silly to talk about solutions on the pointless rant-hub Slashdot has devolved into. Even when the same solution approach could apply to fix some of Slashdot's ancient problems. "Would I donate to add Unicode support to Slashdot?" Quite possibly yes, but not an option. Or what about "to improve the moderation system" or various other things. And I am convinced no such option will ever appear 'round these parts.

So rather than flog that dead horse I'll recycle the ancient joke "What's your better idea?"

Your tone is belligerent and you clearly did not read what I actually wrote. Overall, your reply is not even worth an apology for my poor writing nor an invitation to ask for clarification.

So I'll just say you're still wrong. Completely. It appears you couldn't catch a clue if you were dipped in clue musk and dropped in a field of rampaging clues at the height of clue mating season.

But if you were going for funny, then you didn't get there. (Which was actually the response I anticipated.)

Oh, but surely they'll win, they indicted [strike]a ham sandwich[/strike] this man! And the Trump administration has such a spectacular record with high-profile prosecutions thusfar...

Eh? This is incorrect. Perhaps most fictional murders are premeditated, because that makes for a more interesting mystery to solve, but in real life, the vast majority murders are impulsive, spontaneous acts that happen during arguments, fights, or emotional outbursts (often with the help of alcohol and/or readily available weapons).

I think he's already lost and will keep paying more money to the lawyers for a long time. Whether or not he gets convicted has become moot when the actual goal is scaring people into compliance.

Actually the obvious next step is to criminalize the duress passcode and go after anyone who creates such software. Fundamental advantage on their side because trying to advertise such software has to include contact information... Losses in court are irrelevant to the creation of fear.

Silly to suggest a solution on Slashdot (but I rarely get any Funny mod points, and especially not for solution-oriented rants), but I think I have a simple solution approach for part of the SCOTUS problem:

If anyone is interested I can explain how it would work at some depth. Even some thoughts about a path to implementation. Now lets go for the biggest Funny of all: Or you could describe your better idea.

Another rich target missed.