Timeline for User destroyed without explanations or obvious reasons
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9 at 18:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 14 at 3:11 | |||||
| Jun 9 at 16:33 | comment | added | Alex M. | I have got 10/10 in the test found in this article (scroll down a bit, it is an embedded Google form): arstechnica.com/ai/2024/05/…. You have heard it right: 10/10, I am that good! A hint if you want to win the quiz: the AI-generated answers are the ones that feel "too flawless": flawless punctuation, flawless English, flawless moral thinking. And no ego. | |
| Jun 9 at 16:07 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Your points seems inconclusive to me. I am pretty skeptical anyone can be good at telling AI from human, given how rapidly AI tools are developing and changing. | |
| Jun 9 at 14:27 | comment | added | Alex M. | @SamHopkins: Also, the choice to use short sentences suggests someone for whom English is not the mother tongue, and who feels insecure about writing long convoluted complex sentences (like this one). Not how an AI would behave. Also, using $t$ to denote a natural number again betrays a beginner. Believe me, I am pretty good at telling AI from human - everything is in the small details. | |
| Jun 9 at 14:24 | comment | added | Alex M. | @SamHopkins: First, the chaining of the mathematical reasoning seems coherent. Second, "the metric of the images is not greater than the metric of the preimages" - this sloppiness is typical of how a student would speak. An AI system would have probably said "the distance on the image space" (or "on the range"). An AI system would not have denoted a compact metric space by $\mathcal G$ (but rather by $X$, or $M$). AI-generated answers are often elegant and "too perfect"; the slight sloppiness of this one makes it attributable to a human author (undergraduate, I believe). | |
| Jun 9 at 12:29 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Why do you say the answer was "surely not AI-produced"? | |
| Jun 7 at 8:55 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | All kinds of actions that are publically anonymized for various reasons are formally attributed to the Community user. See meta.stackexchange.com/a/19739 . | |
| Jun 6 at 20:14 | answer | added | S. CarnahanMod | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jun 6 at 12:40 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | I don't claim to understand the inside processes of how the user 'Community' works. It is a placeholder user to which to attach certain actions to, like bumping unanswered questions, anonymous suggested edits, or cleaning up after certain actions by users with superpowers (eg the Stack Exchange staff known as CMs, or MathOverflow moderators). Users with such superpowers are aware of the effects of their actions when it is something like what happened here. I can't say much about this, since it's verging on mod-only territory. | |
| Jun 6 at 11:22 | comment | added | Alex M. | While the proof might be (at least partially) wrong, why would "Community" delete it? Let me clarify my question: what was the part that "Community" played in this? I want to make sure that this robot is well harnessed by intelligent human supervisers. In general, users are not to be deleted for writing "meh" answers - downvotes are supposed to deal with this. | |
| Jun 6 at 10:41 | comment | added | David Roberts Mod | The 'Community' user didn't destroy the account or delete the user. It was a human decision, and while I wasn't the person responsible, you should know that this user had other posts. The answer you link to has very odd non-sequiturs and repetitious wording, as well as sudden flip-flops in notation, and also some argumentation that I think is outright wrong, though the wording superficially reads ok. Also, the "proof by contradiction" that actually just proves the thing outright is a very odd thing to write, it's the kind of thing you see in undergrad-level proofs. | |
| Jun 6 at 10:22 | history | asked | Alex M. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |