You mean human speech that LLMs were modeled after? Or was JFK influenced by LLMs, too?

There are certainly more tells and more people are speaking like LLMs now where they hadn't before.

I agree that there are a ton of tells, but I wouldn't say picking up some new vocabulary is "speaking like" just yet. It's still early, though, so more studies are needed.

Aptitude testing centers like Johnson O'Connor have tests for that. There are (relatively) huge differences between different people's thinking and problem solving styles. For some, creating an efficient process feels natural, while others need stability and redundancy. Programmers are by and large the latter.

[1]: https://www.jocrf.org/how-clients-use-the-analytical-reasoni...

And forgive us for our typos, as we forgive those typo [sic] against us.

I think the two comments above yours are poking fun at the guy who is committing a felony by lying to federal agents. They're just making it obvious what he's doing is really shitty, anti-social behavior.

You are grossly misinformed and making an assumption.

You're thinking of being interviewed by a Federal agent. At no point are you being interviewed at a TSA checkpoint. Generally, they have two agents present for that so they can act as witnesses for each other. The FBI specifically uses the 302 for such an interview. Can you cite the relavant US Code here? I can.

Further, you're assuming I'm lying.

As someone who was present (in the room) as DHS was being formed and witnessed the negotiations around the TSA, the "really shitty, anti-social behavior" is sharing misinformation.

This is a scam that the GOP has convinced many of, that taking from the government commons is the right thing to do. But the GOP is the embodiment of a low trust society. I'd rather live in a high trust society.

> This is a scam that the GOP has convinced many of, that taking from the government commons is the right thing to do.

You should look around carefully and see who is actively defending government fraud right now.

If you're honest, you may be shocked.

Please make your point without lurking in the shadows.

I'd also rather live in a high trust society, but that's impossible with the government that we have (and it's not just Trump, although he has certainly turned our slow creep towards authoritarianism into a speedrun).

I clicked on it because I thought it was about the programming language Julia. I'm still not fully sure what Julia here actually is.

Julia Set. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_set

Funny how that page spends so much of the introduction comparing Julia to Fatou, but the page for Fatou only mentions Julia in passing.

Thank you!

Who made you do anything? It's a fun website. If you don't like it, move along or make one yourself. I could understand if you were paying for something, but this is free.

They said "likely", so they don't "know." Yours is the wrong question.

The "likely" does give the impression that they have a pretty good idea.

I didn't say that to be pedantic, but to avoid that particular type of asker who isn't actually asking a genuine question here. After listing all the ways that Notepad++ (as an example here) suspects who they suspect, the asker then comes back with "Yeah, but how do you know?", as if that's some sort of gotcha. It's disingenuous. Even if the person I replied to isn't attempting this, I find it good to call out and get people to ask a better question: what's the evidence and why does that evidence point to this conclusion?

Well, now, that's not actually true:

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoreanism/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia

Obviously I was using the Pythagorean theorem as a random not literal example. But I’m also curious about what you mean. Mind linking to the specific relevant parts? Linking to humongous articles doesn’t help much.

I was linking it partially tongue in cheek, but oracles and the auspices in antiquity were specifically not about morality. They were about predicting the future. If you wanted to know if you should invade Carthage on a certain day, you'd check the chickens. Literally. And plenty of medical practices were steeped in religious fare, too. If you go back further, a lot of shamanistic practices divine the facts about the present reality. In the words of Terrence McKenna, "[Shamans] cure disease (and another way of putting that is: they have a remarkable facility for choosing patients who will recover), they predict weather (very important), they tell where game has gone, the movement of game, and they seem to have a paranormal ability to look into questions, as I mentioned, who’s sleeping with who, who stole the chicken, who—you know, social transgressions are an open book to them." All very much dealing with facts, not morality.

With regards to Pythagoreanism, Pythagoras himself thought of mathematics in religious ways. From the entry on Pythagoras (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/) in the SEP:

> The cosmos of the acusmata, however, clearly shows a belief in a world structured according to mathematics, and some of the evidence for this belief may have been drawn from genuine mathematical truths such as those embodied in the “Pythagorean” theorem and the relation of whole number ratios to musical concords.

There are numerous sections throughout both of these entries that discuss Pythagoras, mathematics, and religion. Plato too is another fruitful avenue, if you wanted to explore that further.

This is you explaining that you have never plunged into the depths of Know Your Meme.

It's not any one thing, it's all of it combined. Very middling language, bold keywords, simple tricolon throughout, unnecessary em-dashes... If it's not AI, it's still mediocre writing with no substance behind it.

"Not only x, it's y" is an obvious tell as well.

> Software development isn’t just about outputting lines of code; it’s about solving human problems