[HN Gopher] Over half of long posts on LinkedIn are likely AI-ge...
___________________________________________________________________
Over half of long posts on LinkedIn are likely AI-generated
Author : cdme
Score : 54 points
Date : 2024-11-27 21:06 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (originality.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (originality.ai)
| tyre wrote:
| I mean if you're out there reading long posts on LinkedIn, idk
| what you expect. It's not like the human written ones were
| overflowing with knowledge.
| ramon156 wrote:
| There's a literal built-in feature, no one is surprised its AI.
| gowld wrote:
| Why is LinkedIn trying to drive their userbase away from
| engaging on the site?
| tennisflyi wrote:
| Because games will keep them haha
| bawolff wrote:
| Because linkedin's value proposition is to make you look good
| (superficially) to future employers.
|
| Nobody wants to interact on linkedin, they want to look
| impressive. This accomplishes that.
| PrismCrystal wrote:
| Exactly. Those churning out such posts on LinkedIn, would
| very much prefer if other people did not even carefully
| read the actual content, but rather simply assumed "Wow,
| this person is capable of generating a wall of text day in
| and day out, he/she must be a subject-matter expert and
| have great English skills".
| bangaroo wrote:
| there are a lot of contexts where i'd be pretty bummed to find
| out most of the content was written by a computer, or feel like i
| lost something tangible or meaningful because of that change
|
| in the case of linkedin, i lose nothing. before AI the posts all
| seemed like they were written by weird robots anyway. it actually
| reassures me that a human didn't write some of the stuff i read,
| because i pray that no self-aware human would have written that
| thing into the internet.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I was asked by an employer to post about how excited I was for
| the new role, and they pointed me to some examples.
|
| Not AI generated, but template text isn't exactly human
| generated either.
| treve wrote:
| [delayed]
| gowld wrote:
| ...according to this company's AI detector, so not validated or
| validatable by anyone else.
| burkaman wrote:
| Even ignoring the AI detection, their simple graph of average
| word count over time is incredibly suspicious. I can't think of
| any explanation for that other than rampant AI usage.
| zztop44 wrote:
| What about the algorithm changing over time to favor longer
| posts and content creators on the platform adapting to the
| change? I suspect you'd see the same pattern with the average
| length of popular non-music YouTube videos over time.
| burkaman wrote:
| Good point, that's a good explanation. I think the timing
| with ChatGPT and how consistent it was for 5+ years before
| that make for very strong circumstantial evidence, but
| you're right that there is at least one other good
| possibility.
| petesergeant wrote:
| 100% of Upwork proposals are too, removing any differentiation,
| and means I'll probably never use the platform again to find
| people
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| LinkedIn is _by far_ the most useless repository of written
| drivel in the history of humanity. It 's pretty much baked in -
| all social media is performative, but for LinkedIn it's
| performative on a site specifically designed to connect people
| who want to sell their labor for money for people willing to pay.
|
| The only good thing to come out of the the LinkedIn feed was
| r/LinkedInLunatics.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Now I wonder could you use LinkedIn posts to train AI to
| identify content like that and use it as negative filter, well
| for absolutely anything. Any content that matches it should
| probably be flagged and ignored...
| itronitron wrote:
| it's a filter for finding people willing to be performative
| PLenz wrote:
| Dead internet theory is coming true
| mulhoon wrote:
| I have a hard time reading any article with AI generated images
| these days. Especially of robots. Please no.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| images on articles were used to call out an important piece or
| to fill space in printed pages and make the paginator
| (webmaster equivalent of layout machine operator pre-desktop
| publishing days) life easier to fill pages with text columns.
|
| using images on the header of online articles is literary a
| cargo cult people do just because they saw it on magazines
| growing up.
|
| don't even get me started on the use of "eyes" (the larger text
| repeating a part of the article out of place) on digital
| media...
| juujian wrote:
| Hm. I was anticipating AI slob to take over, but this actually
| has me thinking. If I was to write a long post for LinkedIn
| (which I would never do), I would probably ask ChatGPT to
| proofread this. Never actively checked this, but I already have a
| sort-of mental filter for LinkedIn low-effort posts. For the
| posts I actually look at, I'm not sure I would mind if ChatGPT
| had a part in proofreading this. Wonder what the specificity of
| the AI detector is for detecting AI-written post vis-a-vis AI-
| edited posts.
|
| This comment is all organic, no AI ingredients :)
| Hizonner wrote:
| ... and 100 percent of long posts on LinkedIn are useless drivel
| from idiots engaged in clumsy self-promotion. So?
| deadbabe wrote:
| I feel like we must eventually reach an age where people have to
| pay (significant money) just to post.
|
| Why are social networks allowing people to just broadcast to
| massive audiences for free?
|
| I'm curious if content would be more satisfying if only the most
| motivated people were publishing content and not just spammers
| spewing AI drivel to grow their brand.
| a1o wrote:
| This only works if people have a limited amount of money. Since
| some people have pretty much infinite money, money is not the
| way to limit things.
| Animats wrote:
| > Post Length Has Increased by 107% Since Chat-GPT Launched
|
| Oh, joy.
|
| LinkedIn lists their "highest performing posts".[1] #1 is
| "Marketers, stop making these 4 measurement mistakes" All ten of
| them read like they were generated by a program. Not even an LLM,
| something dumber like a template spam generator.
|
| My own LinkedIn entry says "See my Github." Haven't updated
| LinkedIn in years. Hadn't looked in months. If anybody wants to
| talk to me, my email address is available.
|
| [1] https://www.linkedin.com/business/marketing/blog/social-
| medi...
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| "The release of the popular AI chatbot, ChatGPT at the end of
| 2022 likely led to a 189% surge in AI usage in LinkedIn posts."
|
| 189%, eh? This stat makes me believe the entire article is made
| up.
| AndyNemmity wrote:
| Or the way people talk on LinkedIn isn't sufficiently different
| than what an AI randomly spews out.
| AndyNemmity wrote:
| Trying it out, it's completely wrong. As we know all AI
| detectors are. This is just an advertisement for their poor AI
| detector, confusing people into believing this stuff works.
| Havoc wrote:
| And the other half is written by insane people
| bargainbot3k wrote:
| Shitpost in, shitpost out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-27 23:01 UTC)