Thanks for sharing. Just one note: as someone who doesn't know who Mario Bekes is, this whole piece reads a lot like an Ai supported (borderline generated) piece. I literally gave up on the third paragraph.
I was asking this in earnest and not to discredit anybody.
Like i said, I commented after reading the first couple of paragraphs, which to me sound like LLM-assisted fiction (it does not mean they are, I was hoping for someone to clear that up):
> During my recent journey to Berlin—a city where every street corner whispers secrets of a divided past—I uncovered the chilling reality of "Zersetzung."
> This was not just another research assignment; it was an immersive exploration into the dark art of psychological warfare.
> Amidst the solemn corridors of historic museums, I engaged with former STASI operatives and leading experts, drawing on my extensive background in human intelligence and interrogations.
> Their firsthand accounts and my rigorous investigation reveal how East Germany's covert strategy was designed to systematically dismantle not only dissent but the very essence of a person's identity
No first-hand account is referenced in detail later, the article goes on in a weirdly encyclopedic style, given the introduction. It also jumps to equating the Stasi with modern types of discourse silencing.
Which might have merit! Just seemed weird given the beginning of the article.
Berlin doesn't seem to have any special relevance later in the article, but the author says that this is based on "firsthand accounts" and that their "rigorous investigation reveal how East Germany's covert strategy was designed".
I have previously read things and watched films about the Stasi (an important and interesting subject).
Bur I'm not an expert in this subject and also have no first- or second-hand experience as victim, with regimes like the DDR.
My gripe was nothing about the article's content, it just seemed as if there was no original research and the article might have been a summary of other sources.
In my opinion, while this should not be claimed lightly, it is absolutely OK to say that a piece of writing sounds like AI-generated content and ask about it.
I'm deeply sorry if this reads like I wanted to discredit an honest creator (why would I want that?)
Maybe I sound like an LLM too, sure? Or maybe the author used one to write just one or two paragraphs? I don't know!
> Join me as we delve deep into the meticulously orchestrated tactics of the Stasi—a narrative that is as compelling as it is disturbing, and one that continues to resonate in today’s era of digital manipulation.
Adjective-heavy fluff like this screams "ChatGPT"/LLM to me, and I don't see why I would not comment that when it exceeds my personal threshold for perceiving it this way.
I put in a "disclaimer" because I anticipated this coming across as rude.
Claiming that my question (or questioning any online text source) would be in line of some political "Zersetzung" strategy seems like an insult to actual victims of the Stasi to me. Of which I am not one, but my question was also not some political slander or attempt to silence the author.
What about plainly avoiding such hard of disprove allegations as a matter of principle. Regardless of how many disclaimers you lace them with. You have plenty of other more salient and less inflammatory gripes than chatgpt generation anyway.
To me that intro seems like a standard american essay fluff, these were plenty before chatgpt.
You were right, it does sound LLM assisted at least. It's well-written but superficial, lacking sources and examples, typical of an LLM summary. Not that it's wrong or that info about ongoing secret operations is publicly available anyway
Did you find something incorrect in the two paragraphs that you read? Here they are:
During my recent journey to Berlin—a city where every street corner whispers secrets of a divided past—I uncovered the chilling reality of "Zersetzung."
This was not just another research assignment; it was an immersive exploration into the dark art of psychological warfare.
This is the personal website of a human being. The first two paragraphs described a human traveling to Berlin. Does ChatGPT travel often?
I was exclusively talking about the writing style. Assuming a text would have been written by an LLM would of course not preclude it from being a rewording /summarization of real events or other people's writing.
I see you posted another submission about this topic, and I can read that more easily, it sounds more natural to me.
Make of that what you will, can't engange deeper rn, have to go back to work.
Is the claim that the author is lying on their own web site about their travel, using ChatGPT to write fictional travel anecdotes?
Would you care to provide any evidence to support the assertion that this personal website was written by an LLM?
Data science project: index HN articles which trigger comments about AI/LLM/ChatGPT, with a combination of automated analysis and manual labeling to identify false positives, extract signal-to-noise ratio of HN comment detection of LLMs over time.
re: "stasi could not predict", well in Czechoslovakia the secret police (StB - Statni bezpecnost) used similar methods. And they had half year to prepare (since summer when Hungary opened a hole in the iron curtain specifically for east germans) and support of hardline leadership of czechoslovak communist party. It did not help them.
Thanks for sharing. Just one note: as someone who doesn't know who Mario Bekes is, this whole piece reads a lot like an Ai supported (borderline generated) piece. I literally gave up on the third paragraph.
Better article posted, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43817664
I'm sorry if this sounds incendiary and I admit I only read the first couple of paragraphs, but is this AI-generated content?
Sorry again if this is a fully baseless accusation, don't have time to dive deeper at this moment. It just sounded like ChatGPT to me
"you sound like chatgpt, sorry if i'm mistaken", the ultimate zersetzung
I was asking this in earnest and not to discredit anybody.
Like i said, I commented after reading the first couple of paragraphs, which to me sound like LLM-assisted fiction (it does not mean they are, I was hoping for someone to clear that up):
> During my recent journey to Berlin—a city where every street corner whispers secrets of a divided past—I uncovered the chilling reality of "Zersetzung." > This was not just another research assignment; it was an immersive exploration into the dark art of psychological warfare. > Amidst the solemn corridors of historic museums, I engaged with former STASI operatives and leading experts, drawing on my extensive background in human intelligence and interrogations. > Their firsthand accounts and my rigorous investigation reveal how East Germany's covert strategy was designed to systematically dismantle not only dissent but the very essence of a person's identity
No first-hand account is referenced in detail later, the article goes on in a weirdly encyclopedic style, given the introduction. It also jumps to equating the Stasi with modern types of discourse silencing.
Which might have merit! Just seemed weird given the beginning of the article.
Berlin doesn't seem to have any special relevance later in the article, but the author says that this is based on "firsthand accounts" and that their "rigorous investigation reveal how East Germany's covert strategy was designed".
I have previously read things and watched films about the Stasi (an important and interesting subject).
Bur I'm not an expert in this subject and also have no first- or second-hand experience as victim, with regimes like the DDR.
My gripe was nothing about the article's content, it just seemed as if there was no original research and the article might have been a summary of other sources.
In my opinion, while this should not be claimed lightly, it is absolutely OK to say that a piece of writing sounds like AI-generated content and ask about it.
I'm deeply sorry if this reads like I wanted to discredit an honest creator (why would I want that?)
Maybe I sound like an LLM too, sure? Or maybe the author used one to write just one or two paragraphs? I don't know!
> Join me as we delve deep into the meticulously orchestrated tactics of the Stasi—a narrative that is as compelling as it is disturbing, and one that continues to resonate in today’s era of digital manipulation.
Adjective-heavy fluff like this screams "ChatGPT"/LLM to me, and I don't see why I would not comment that when it exceeds my personal threshold for perceiving it this way.
I put in a "disclaimer" because I anticipated this coming across as rude.
Claiming that my question (or questioning any online text source) would be in line of some political "Zersetzung" strategy seems like an insult to actual victims of the Stasi to me. Of which I am not one, but my question was also not some political slander or attempt to silence the author.
Have a good day.
What about plainly avoiding such hard of disprove allegations as a matter of principle. Regardless of how many disclaimers you lace them with. You have plenty of other more salient and less inflammatory gripes than chatgpt generation anyway.
To me that intro seems like a standard american essay fluff, these were plenty before chatgpt.
You were right, it does sound LLM assisted at least. It's well-written but superficial, lacking sources and examples, typical of an LLM summary. Not that it's wrong or that info about ongoing secret operations is publicly available anyway
Did you find something incorrect in the two paragraphs that you read? Here they are:
This is the personal website of a human being. The first two paragraphs described a human traveling to Berlin. Does ChatGPT travel often?I should have read your post in full before my commenting (it was late in the evening here).
Can't describe now what exactly I meant about the writing and normally I refrain from accusing LLM usage because of such gut feelings. So sorry.
Of course people have published LLM texts on their personal sites, but that doesn't mean you do.
So far I only skimmed that post, will re-read it later.
Not my website, but the author does not appear to be fictional. If they are, it would be good to know how to figure that out.
I was exclusively talking about the writing style. Assuming a text would have been written by an LLM would of course not preclude it from being a rewording /summarization of real events or other people's writing.
I see you posted another submission about this topic, and I can read that more easily, it sounds more natural to me.
Make of that what you will, can't engange deeper rn, have to go back to work.
Thanks for the response.
If you ask it nicely, yes.
Is the claim that the author is lying on their own web site about their travel, using ChatGPT to write fictional travel anecdotes?
Would you care to provide any evidence to support the assertion that this personal website was written by an LLM?
Data science project: index HN articles which trigger comments about AI/LLM/ChatGPT, with a combination of automated analysis and manual labeling to identify false positives, extract signal-to-noise ratio of HN comment detection of LLMs over time.
I'm not claiming anything except that you can use an LLM to help you write anything.
Normal office politics. Not really STASI only.
https://archive.is/YZlbI
re: "stasi could not predict", well in Czechoslovakia the secret police (StB - Statni bezpecnost) used similar methods. And they had half year to prepare (since summer when Hungary opened a hole in the iron curtain specifically for east germans) and support of hardline leadership of czechoslovak communist party. It did not help them.
[dead]