reducing the probability of the top weighted words the LLM chooses from
My feeling is that a writer who adjusts their word choice to present a particular way is definitionally behaving inauthentically. I would characterize such writing as "slop" even if it's human made, because it was still heavily influenced by how LLMs "write".
Put another way- I don't believe that "not worrying about appearing as an LLM" is "giving up", I think it's a recognition that an LLM is not capable of fighting you in the first place. If you, a creative soul, allow fear of "coming off a certain way" (ANY way) to determine how you write, you have already lost.
As for Lemmy, there are many articles from lesser known sources that get positive attention here that seem to use AI but do not get removed
Well, Lemmy is not one thing, your instance for example is explicitly in favor of boosting AI-generated content. So that behavior is what I would expect if I had an account there. I personally wouldn't go there expecting to see links to human-made content.
I don't believe it's possible for human writers to write both authentically and also in a way that is coded to verify they are human (as the article discusses) that an LLM couldn't eventually come to replicate. I also don't believe it's possible for an LLM to write from their unique perspective. Therefore, I believe the strongest method for verifying ones own human-ness is to write from one's own unique perspective.
signalling humanity in a way that resists automated systems
I think I would understand your perspective better if you gave an example or two of what signals could be used?
Social security is a bad investment for an individual, but most people are terrible investors if they invest into their future at all. So by giving everyone that baseline, it helps out everyone else, including the rich. And is therefore a fantastic investment for everyone.
If you’re reading, you want to determine whether what you are reading is a waste of your time as quickly as possible.
I have honestly not heard of this behavior, and I myself certainly don't do this. I wouldn't determine "what's worth reading" in the middle of reading, but well before I start. For example, if a piece is published somewhere I trust, or a friend recommended it, or say, it was posted in a Lemmy community known to have good moderation.
Like I said I understand why an artist would have a desire to present as authentic, but that is an unwinnable game because:
The AI is also "trying to present as authentic" (any automated filtering system is beatable)
Adjusting one's behavior so as to appear a particular way is definitionally inauthentic.
On one hand I understand the need to feel seen as authentic, but on the other, I think there is a danger in giving into the hysteria surrounding slop by twisting one's work into knots. If it's good, it's good. As Martin Scorsese said: "The most personal is the most creative."
I know that I've never personally never seen any LLM generated content that was interesting beyond it's novelty. Adam Savage also said (paraphrasing bc I can't find it) "Sharing your point of view is what makes something interesting and I have yet to see AI-generated content that has a point of view".
Listen I will fully admit it can be garish when overdone (like on ios honestly) and heavy on system resources for no good reason. But aesthetically? Aesthetically it kinda slaps!
