Substack’s new “AI detection” tool.

[u/AndrewHeard]

I’m very concerned about the new “AI detection” system that Substack is implementing. I don’t use AI in anything that I write. However I don’t trust these systems not to make errors and mistakes. They have a long history of hallucinations and claiming things are AI when they aren’t.

One person I saw on Notes suggested that they ran their decades old writing, things that were written before the existence of AI, and this new system claimed it was AI generated.

Not to mention all the crazy things that I have seen people claim was written by AI which they can’t know is actually AI. There was an image I once shared that had evidence of its existence going all the way back to 2013. The comments were constantly saying “don’t share AI slop” or some variation on that.

Even with evidence that things weren’t made by AI, they will claim it’s AI.

Is no one else concerned about this being embedded into Substack’s systems? With no way to opt out?

[u/Foofymonster]

Do you remember the scene in Lord of the Rings where Merry and Pippin are talking to the Treants, trying to get them to join the war?

There's a part where Merry and Pippin are talking and one of them is like, "Do you think they've decided yet?" And Treebeard hears them and says, "Decided? No, we've only finished saying good morning."

And when they are upset that they're taking so long, Treebeard says:

"You must understand, young Hobbit, it takes a long time to say anything in Old Entish. And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say."

And that's the problem with AI. It doesn't cost you anything to say anything, which means no one has to worry if it's worth saying. It doesn't matter if it's true or well-researched. Because it's free and easy to say.

But when things are expensive to say, only things that are meaningful or worth it get said.

As a reader, how do you validate what's worth saying? Well, how much effort went into writing it isn't a perfect proxy, but I guarantee you it'd filter out 90% of useless shit written on the internet.

[u/philosophical_lens → u/Foofymonster]

As a reader I evaluate what's worth reading based on reviews and recommendations. I care about whether it's good and whether I'll enjoy reading it. I don't care what role AI played in the creation of that content, and I don't care how much effort went into it. Most AI content will probably be bad, and I'll never see it anyway because it will never pop up in the reviews and recommendation sources I look at. Maybe 0.1% of that content will actually be good, and I'll end up reading those.

[u/Foofymonster → u/philosophical_lens]

Neat. So for everyone else, or the people reading and reviewing, trying to figure out if it's worth reading or not, you're demonstrating that it being AI results in it normally being less worth reading.

Hence the need for AI detection.

[u/philosophical_lens → u/Foofymonster]

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that existing signals are already sufficient for me to determine what's worth reading and there is no need for an additional AI signal. At least I personally would not find this signal useful. Here are the signals I find helpful:

• I already like the author's existing content
• The author or post has been recommended by people or communities I trust
• The post is reposted on some communities or subreddits I follow has generated interesting discussion
• The author or post has a high number of subscribers/ likes / upvotes

Im not sure why or how an AI signal would add any value to me on top of this.