Language Learning Models (LLMs) are all the rage these days. Tools like ChatGPT and others can easily be used to create bogus club reviews that do not offer new and relevant information to this community. But how can TUSCL adjudicators weed them out? Here are 7 tell-tale signs that AI was used to generate a review:
-
The Emdash. The emdash is an elongated single dash that is often used highlight and separate a subordinate clause — just like this. Most users composing a review in a browser will use a double dash -- like this -- or a single dash to achieve the same effect. There's no emdash key and it is difficult to produce an emdash in most browsers and operating systems. For example a Windows user would have to type
Alt + 0151to produce it. The emdash is a hallmark stylistic quirk of ChatGPT, which uses them ubiquitously. Though it's a strong indicator, an emdash isn't a guarantee a review is AI generated, as some tools such as MS-Word will automatically convert a double dash to an emdash. -
Ice Cold Grammar. Human writers, even good ones, frequently make minor grammatical mistakes such as
yourin lieu ofyou'reorit'swhereitsis correct. We write fragments and run-on sentences. An article devoid of any grammatical flourishes should raise suspicions. One gray area we do encounter is reviews that were written by a human and polished by AI. I don't think we should find such reviews objectionable so long as the content is good. -
Not X, but Y. This form of statement is employed by humans frequently so one needs to be careful, however, LLMs absolutely love this form and rely on it heavily because the it produces clear, well-structured text. For example, The club was not too crowded, but it was a festive and lively atmosphere. One or two of these in an article shouldn't raise eyebrows, but if half the content takes the form of
Not X but Y, be suspicious. Other forms the AI loves includeOn one hand..., but on the other...and AI also loves to sayIn conclusion... -
Conclusions in bold. LLMs love to put important or concluding thoughts in bold. Human writers do this too, so it's not a slam dunk. However, in conjunction with other indicators bold text conclusions may indicate the use of an LLM.
-
PG Content. All the major LLMs have guardrails that prevent users from generating explicit language and content. If the review reads like a USA Today article, it may have been generated by an LLM.
-
Redundancy and AI-flavored Word Salad. Repetition of the same idea with synonyms that produces word-salad is another tell-tale sign of LLM-generated content. A human might write something like, The club was crowded, but had a fun party vibe. An LLM might state the same idea as Although the venue was densely populated, it maintained an energetic and enjoyable party atmosphere.
-
A mile wide and inches deep. LLMs are great at generating volumes of snappy well-structured text. They do not know jack shit about most strip clubs (at least until @Founder trains up a model on the vast data he has.) They can't describe the dancers, they won't describe with detail the experience of getting a dance. The biggest tell tale sign of an AI-generated review is that it doesn't offer any new and relevant information of the club. The second biggest clue is that the review gets salient details of the club wrong. The lack of relevant and accurate information in conjunction with spotless grammar is probably the biggest indicator that someone used an LLM to generate the review. The best way to weed out AI-generated reviews is to ensure strict adherence to the review guidelines. Does the review accurately describe the PEOPLE, PLACE, and PRICES? If not, reject it!
-
Zero engagement from the OP. Unfortunately, this tell-tale sign only rears it's head after a review has been published. TUSCLers who use AI to generate reviews will rarely comment in the own reviews, and when they do they won't sound the same!
Here's an example of a recent review were you can see almost all of these indicators in action: tuscl.net. Do you have other good examples of AI-generated reviews that slipped the adjudication net on TUSCL? Do you have other tricks for spotting AI-generated content? Post them below!
Comments
last commentHere's a few more:
Log in to vote
I think this discussion post was AI generated.
Just kidding. @RonJax2 is a trusted contributor who always brings good insight. Although I may be guilty of using all 8 of these literary techniques in my reviews on this site.
By the way, I use Copilot AI, but my wife and kids have access to my Copilot account and can see everything I query there, so I’ll never be tempted to submit an AI generated or AI assisted review.
Log in to vote
You were only kidding ^^^
But seriously, my very first thought after a paragraph or two, this article in itself is AI generated. Sure reads that way. Lol.
Log in to vote
Here's an example of an AI generated review. I was the only who caught it, everyone else missed it. The author of this review has never appeared on the site again in any capacity (i.e. a "one-hit wonder")
tuscl.net
Note the following:
"I’ve only been here on a Thursday, so I’ll have to check out the weekend crowd next time, but for a weeknight, this spot definitely delivers."
"I’m not sure if they charge for entry on weekends, but I’d imagine they do when it gets busier."
Log in to vote
@FrustratedInTheUS You are spot on about the positive, chirpy mood! That should be item 8 on my list!
@iknowbetter I use AI a shit ton for work and personal needs. So I am definitely picking up AI habits through osmosis, lol. But like you, I'm terrified of the electronic trail using AI creates, so I would never ever use AI to polish or tune a TUSCL post. I'd rather have grammar and clarity errors in my content.
Log in to vote
Who cares
Log in to vote
@Baristafan I think it's important we gatekeep the AI reviews because they don't add any value to the site. They're like a fake diamond necklace, which looks good but is worth nothing. We want to be seeing tangible information on things like Place, People and Prices, and AI generated reviews offer none of that!
Log in to vote
Good post
If youre genuinely wanting to read reviews, it should be because you have some level of interest in going to a club… So at some point you should be able to visit and properly review a club
So i wonder if people submitting these AI reviews are more likely to be cops or trolls or club managers, snooping boyfriends etc.; someone who cant or isnt willing to actually go to any clubs
Log in to vote
I think reviews should be detailed with names of the whores. Anything less is worthless.
Log in to vote
If I had to guess 90% of it is thirsty dudes who want to read reviews without paying or offering up a real review of their own. 10% could be anything else - from cops to jilted lovers.
Log in to vote
Lol^^
Log in to vote
@baristafan, maybe the rule should be, if you offer up a dancers name in conjunction with an illegal act, you should also publish your own IRL ID. And if that's objectionable to you, maybe consider it's because dancers value their privacy as much as you do your own!
Log in to vote
RonJax2 - Interesting post, and a good one👍🏻
Thanks for making us aware of it, and honestly speaking I for one wasn’t even aware of Al generated reviews being an option🤔
Log in to vote
I submitted an AI review several months ago to bait the dumb shits that approve anything. Thankfully no one did. A little faith in humanity restored.
tuscl.net
Log in to vote
RJ2- Damn good thread, even if it was AI generated (lol). Retired here, so I'm not an AI user (except for co-pilot default). Besides tuscl reviews, I've run across many YT vids that are obviously AI generated. Besides the monotone computer voice (they've gotten more refined lately, more closely resembling human voice) they have a certain sterile mien about them. Often seems to be trying too hard to cram a bunch of details in there just to make it seem thorough.
Thanks for all the examples provided, I'll stay tuned for more. Puddy's link n/g (404 error).
Log in to vote
@minnow I agree that AI video and voice has yet to cross the "uncanny valley." They're both very rapidly getting better, and I think AI voice tech is moving faster than video rn.
Log in to vote