If only this tool came out before I discovered the ballerina programming language (https://ballerina.io/). Otherwise I am inline with the language <-> uml like definition ballerina statically provides without llm usage.

Expecting vscode to police every single dev using it instead of a company is bananas.

Would you rather not know if what you read is llm generated? I would rather like to know if a book was written by an llm, and em dashes (or similar) will only be apparent for some models for some time.

Yes, and you can also just… create content without AI if you don’t want watermarks on it.

Perfect, I’m glad we’re both for these watermarks.

Let me just get my tens of thousands of dollars I have waiting around to get a few sparks.

Still better then Microsoft.

I've never had Microsoft read a message, initiate an AI generation, then attempt to inject that into my conversation.

Not to say they wouldn't try...

You don't use Outlook I take it.

They’re too busy taking screenshots of your desktop every 2 seconds to datamine your interests in order to sell ads injected into the start menu.

The very lowest bar that ever existed.

Among popular OSs with mainstream app support, there’s only macOS and windows (and chromeOs I guess?). So you’re right, the lowest bar in a competition between two.

Oh go ahead and damage random parts to your system if you want, just let the majority of non-tech or non-risk users benefit from some strong defaults.

Blanket bans are better the no bans at all. I would agree we need genuine and granular regulation, though I don’t think it’s wise to ask kids what they think is best for them. Not a parent but a parent might have some concern for letting kids rule themselves.

I really, really, really want this to take off. I love this idea.

Glad you like it :)

I disagree for academia using papers as an easy medium for verification and providing more knowledge. Llms always short circuit everything, so how would you fix academia?

That would fail, humans and agents could create new “author” accounts by the swarm or have paid author accounts.

Do you imagine a world where people are willing to go through the legal hassle of changing their name to get past a ban for low effort journal submissions?

Legal names aren’t 1:1 with author names. If they were, who’d verify that?

Validating someone’s association with an institution by name seems like a reasonable thing to do. Perhaps it wasn’t done in the past, but times and circumstances have changed. Trust in authorship is lower than ever, and for good reason.

It likely is, but that’s also on the assumption every author has to be in association with an institution and it’s quick to verify that.

What good reason is there for trust in authorship to be low? I would likely agree for if it’s related to llm-slop.

Plagiarism, fictional data, and unreproducible results have been a problem for a some time, and LLMs are now increasingly standing in authors’ shoes. In a system that rewards production over all else, people are naturally going to be incentivized to cut corners.

Some cultures that are increasingly participating in the scientific process don’t even agree as to what the ethical boundaries are.

True, and thanks to llms are of those are being “exploited” exponentially more.

“In a system that rewards production over all else, people are naturally going to be incentivized to cut corners.” That sounds like the human condition and or capitalism, advancements in cars, weapons, toys, etc…

The agreement on ethical boundaries seems like a conversation held at a conference level, otherwise place a governs place b and that never goes well.

I agree fully replicable experiments is a minimum for research papers. Even with caveats it should be required. That being said those who don’t want to fully prove their claims will find another venue. I think frontier models should curb or have provably verified output (chatgpt did say x) for the majority cases to help reduce or help identify the slop.

> That sounds like the human condition and or capitalism, advancements in cars, weapons, toys, etc…

Indeed it is! That's why we set up rules of the game/road/etc. that we expect participants to adhere to, and impose sanctions when they don't. We're in that uncomfortable place today where we're trying to figure out how our rules should adapt to this new era.

Life is messy.

Oh no I fully agree with that. We just have to find a medium that people can easily use but can’t abuse. The constant cat and mouse security problem given non-infinite money. In-person defense would solve this but I think the cost is too high.

Even if it's not a legal name, are you going to review the CV of an applicant who used a different name on every publication they claim authorship of? It's going to be pretty obvious someone is being nefarious

The CV of an applicant is definitely different. For a job application where a cv were used, that’s a slower/paid process where attention should be paid to details. However what’s a difference to a conference with a “young upcoming author” vs llm-Lorem ipsum author name?

What's the motivation to do that? Academic fraud is about building up a name.

Could you please expand? I don’t believe I understand the question.

You said that people could do a thing. I'm asking why they would.

Academic fraud is done to boost the reputation of the academic. There isn't a lot of point in academic fraud with one paper on each of 50 fake names.

Ahhhh, that makes more sense. Academic fraud may not always be used to boost the reputation of an academic, it could boost the reputation of a science/technique/medicine. If you see 30 authors with 1,000s of citations saying x is superior and 3 authors saying y is superior, from a quick glance x seems a lot better.

Edit: see medical studies