> Three common and well-known tells in AI writing — sometimes genuinely deployed by humans but nowhere their profligate use by AI — are the regularity of em-dashes, the high frequency of specific words like “genuinely”, and the tendency to repeatedly invoke tricolons.
I'd like for someone who's fluent in English in Italian to take a crack at comparing the two versions though. There may be more clues there
Considering that LLMs output simultaneously becomes more human-sounding, you’d either have to continuously run what you write through various detectors and keep changing it or you must resign to inevitably be called an LLM at some point.
One of the most problematic aspects of this technology in human society is precisely that—not that it absolves us of having to spend effort and be creative, but that if you do apply work someone will easily and legitimately claim that it’s all machine output and you deserve no appreciation for it.
> Different sections of the encyclical have very different rates of apparent AI usage. This indicates to me that some cardinals used AI assistance for this encyclical and many (probably including Pope Leo himself) don’t.
So... no, the Pope did not and was never in question...
The main post is a very poor article in the 'we're just asking questions' style with clickbait title.
I would even say main post is an AI generated summary