It was actual work output I generated a few weeks back with Sonnet 5. Not posting here for obvious reasons, but it was nothing special or engineered for Pangram deception.
Ya bro it's totally not possible to defeat a detection system that, in its own marketing on contrived, game-able benchmarks that they created, claims only a 99.6% true negative rate.
As stated, it's work product. Not a toy "adversarial prompt," so I won't be posting it here.
And as stated, even Pangram's own marketing material claims at least a 0.4% false negative rate on their own contrived corpus. A one in 250 event is hardly even rare.
You seem quite defensive about Pangram, and it shows up in a few of your comments. Is there a reason for that? If it's extending to outright denial of Pangram's own stated error rates... sheesh... very weird indeed (unless they're paying you, obviously).
What I said is that every time Pangram has said 100% AI, it is 100% something I don't want to read. I don't particularly care if it was written by humans or LLMs.
Every time I've asked for evidence from someone who claims something like you do there always seems to be a reason it can't be posted. So it makes one suspicious.
Is there no way you can modify your prompt to be shareable?
> I never found a piece of text that pangram claims is 100% AI that to me seems like purely human written text.
That's another claim you made, which is quite silly. You've never found something that Pangram marks as 0% human and which you deem to be 100% human? Huge gulf.
And no, not really. It's copy from fundraising materials. Removing the identifiable portions of it would remove virtually everything, which is perhaps why Pangram didn't flag it?
I said it wasn't something I wanted to read. Humans are capable of writing things I don't want to read. Which at this point is starting to include your comments.
I did and it's true, but I amended my statement at the top of this thread, which you've ignored.
What I wrote is true (it is a claim about my experience), so I'm not sure what you're attacking.
I amended my statement to avoid a discussion about the provenance which is not what I actually care about. What I care about is if I want to read it. Humans could theoretically write something in AI voice and if they did, I wouldn't want to read it.
I have not seen any examples of human text in LLM style that clearly predate 2023. If you can supply one, that would be incredible evidence.
If you're able to supply a prompt which generates text that fools pangram and is not like one sentence long or a list of names or something, but actual prose I want to read, then I will concede.
Oh, well sure, but I don't care about your preferences for what you'd like to read. You can use a Ouija board to decide whether something is worth reading for all I care, just don't use it to accuse other people of plagiarism or dishonesty.
Duh.
If your statement was "my super special dowsing rods tell me what I want to read with 100% accuracy" I'd say "cool." But that wasn't your claim.
> If you're able to supply a prompt which generates text that fools pangram and is not like one sentence long or a list of names or something, but actual prose I want to read, then I will concede.
This is an even more conservative claim than the one you just made! Sheesh.
Adafruit filed what's called a declaratory judgment action against Flux (Defy Gravity).
Adafruit was asking the judge to say that they didn't violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when they were researching an article and accessed some confidential documents that were inadvertently exposed.
Adafruit also asked for a judgement that they didn't defame Flux.
Flux responded on August 31, in which they signed a binding release saying they'd never file CFAA claims against Adafruit for the activities described in the complaint.
Flux then asked the court to dismiss the second part where Adafruit sought a judgment that they did not defame Flux. The basis is that the court no longer has jurisdiction over the federal claim, so it should go to state court.
Flux doesn't really address that the parties are from different states, and thus the court may still be diversity jurisdiction through which the court can maintain jurisdiction over the case.
I keep on hearing people be excited about PHP. Having first attempted to use PHP in early 00s, I simply cannot bring myself to attempt it again. I once had to rewrite large chunks of a site because it simply couldn't deal with the fact that a string had an apostrophe in it.
I can only recommend to check out a popular project, maybe Laravel, and read it’s documentation. Alternatively, look at the PHP website itself. The new syntax improvements alone are pretty convincing IMHO, but the engine also got a JIT compiler, a runtime type system that’s fully opt-in, fibers for concurrency, and much more.
A single function button should not behave differently based on where on the button you click it.
EDIT: It's also WILDLY inconsistent. Click and drag on a button and the shape doesn't change. Click and drag on an on/off and the deformation follows the mouse. Merely click an on/off and the deformation does not follow the the little circle thingy, or bear any relation to the action of the button.
Some of the things are inoffensive, spinner dots, progress bars, accordion menus. But basically anything that deforms on click related to where you click are nonsense.
EDIT 2: The buttons in the demo area apparently do have distortion that follows the mouse, but on the left side they don't? For me this is just a lot of bafflingly inconsistent gloss that makes me wonder what's going on or why one thing behaves differently than others, and what that means for actual functionality. Rather than just interacting with the UI.
> But basically anything that deforms on click related to where you click are nonsense.
Why would you say this? These buttons recognize every click I do on them and I find it very nice that the deformation is different for different click areas. The button still works like a normal button but is nice to look at, or have I misunderstood you?
I've been using this knot for a decade or so, and my shoes have come untied twice. Both times I stepped on a loose end and pulled it open. It's incredible
Clojurist makes it sound like adherents to a belief, which does imply identity though Clojurian more directly so. I’ve also found Clojurian most often. If only we had software that indexed the popularity of words…
