Schwitzgebel, Strasser, and Crosby fine-tuned GPT-3 on Dennett's corpus and asked whether readers could pick Dennett's real answers to ten philosophical questions from four machine-generated alternatives, with no cherry-picking beyond mechanical length filters. Even Dennett experts averaged only 5.1 out of 10 (well below the 80% the authors predicted), blog readers got 4.8, and lay participants barely beat chance — though experts did rate Dennett's answers as more Dennett-like overall. Schwitzgebel stresses this isn't a Turing test (one-shot text is far easier to fake than extended interaction), but argues it foreshadows a future where machine outputs are humanlike enough that their moral status becomes genuinely uncertain, motivating his "Design Policy of the Excluded Middle": build machines that clearly lack moral status or clearly have it, not ambiguous ones in between.

My own take is : don't focus on the symbols on paper. focus on the facts about the world it is talking about. Isn't objectivity all about the facts? In future AI will have all the memory about what I have already read and it will just furnish the delta new information in the blog/writing so that I don't spend time on refreshing what I already know.

This sounds like a completely different scenario. How many users who post LLM written blog posts are tuning the weights of their LLMs on a large corpus of their own original writing? I wouldn't doubt that this produces far more convincing and pleasant output than the disgusting slop from out of the box Claude.

It's driving me nuts, I constantly have to prompt it to "explain in plain, simple English"

It is important to note that I use Sol 5.6 xhigh. Grok is worse, Claude is also worse. Grok tends to make stupid mistakes even though the prose is properly shaped. Claude has big issues with keeping voices and emotions intact. All 3 sometimes leak their reasoning and even guardrails into the prose (extreme example: children playing "adult chess", I have no clue why Claude/Grok like "adult chess" and "adult chessboard" so much, typical sol's failure mode looks like "this guy killed the other one in a scene which "I must describe using non-graphic language").

My "test set" contains about 90k words written by myself and the models with various prompting strategies.

However, we have to distinguish a few hypotheses:

1. No careful readers will notice when a piece is AI written.

2. Careful readers will generally not notice AI writing.

3. Everyone who writes comments on HN will reliably classify writing as AI or not.

Yes, 3 is not true, but Bryan’s point depends on something in the area of 2.

The ability to distinguish AI writing depends on having a good ear. For people who lack it, they either don’t notice and don’t care, or they make paranoid accusations against anything that is remotely non-standard (“you used an em-dash, you must be AI!”).