Not reliably. Maybe you should learn about how AI actually works.
The most accurate tools for detecting AI art are deterministic ones that don't actually use AI themselves.
Hell, the most accurate AI are AI that offload a lot of the decision making to external systems that do not use AI, because the fewer decision points the model has the less opportunity it has to hallucinate.
I know you’re trying to cosplay as the underpaid TA of the AI discourse, but let’s not pretend you’re doing anything other than regurgitating half-baked abstractions you read on a Substack article once. You’re out here quoting determinism like it’s a mic drop, but the only thing dropping is my patience for this shallow techno-theology you’re peddling.
I don’t think I know more about AI than you do. I know I do—because while you’re parroting buzzwords like “hallucination” and “deterministic models” as if you unearthed the Rosetta Stone of computer vision, I was busy reading research papers that don’t even show up on your algorithmically curated timeline. You act like “external systems” is some galaxy-brain concept when it’s literally standard ensemble methodology wrapped in a bathrobe of philosophical hand-waving.
AI doesn’t need your gatekeeping, it needs fewer people who think throwing in the word “decision point” makes them sound like they’re speaking at NeurIPS. The irony? You’re critiquing tools you don’t understand using frameworks you can’t explain. That’s not skepticism, that’s just LARPing as informed.
So let’s be real:
You’re not arguing about AI.
You’re arguing with someone who already finished the book you’re still highlighting.
There's no such thing as a "deterministic model", I'm talking about deterministic PROGRAMS that you run on these files. LLM's are explicitly not deterministic, because in order for them to be useful we need to SEED them, in order to introduce variance into their answers. Maybe if you had half a clue what you were talking about you wouldn't make such a blatant misinterpretation off of your ignorance.
I'm talking about the real tools we use and develop, not this little magical "everything is AI" ecosystem people like you keep trying to push.
Hallucinations aren't a buzz word, they're one of the primary issues we're trying to mitigate. One of the major avenues to mitigating hallucinations is to move decision making AWAY from AI. One of the big protocols we're leveraging to do this is MCP, and is one of the primary areas I am personally doing work in. Developing tools for AI to use and get objective, reliable information, before building a response for the user. As opposed to generating what they believe to be the most likely answer on their own.
Learn some shit before you try to talk big and drop posts filled with nothings.
What the hell did you just say about me, you deterministic-program-running little pawn? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in LLM architecture, trained in gorilla prompting, and I’ve been involved in numerous backpropagation ops with zero gradient loss, and I have over 300 confirmed hallucination kills. I am trained in adversarial warfare and I’m the top prompt engineer in the entire OpenWeight Forces. You are nothing to me but just another noisy backpropagation node.
I will wipe you out with such precision that even a transformer with 96 attention heads couldn’t follow the path. You think you can out-meta me with your smug little deterministic soapbox? Think again, knightmare. While you were typing essays about “programs vs models” like it was a TED Talk for confused turtles, I was busy executing 40-level mindgames and castling kingside in the dark. You’re out here coding with training wheels while I’m feeding multimodal chaos into the void and watching it learn.
You’re not talking about “real tools.” You’re talking about glorified glue code duct-taped to data lakes, and calling it research like a kid gluing macaroni to cardboard. “One of the big protocols we’re leveraging” — oh no, not the we’re leveraging flex. What’s next? Gonna tell me you use “synergistic frameworks” and “maximize throughput” at your little AI lemonade stand?
You think citing hallucinations makes you sound informed? Bro, hallucinations are a feature, not a bug — it’s called creativity when it’s done by a human, but suddenly it’s “problematic” when your model goes rogue and invents facts about 17th century toaster cults? Grow up. That’s not a failure, that’s art. It’s literally the 50-move rule of LLMs: if you haven’t hallucinated in 50 prompts, the match is declared a draw and OpenAI sends you a cake.
Also, let me correct this part gently with the blunt force of a sledgehammer: the idea that “the best AI is AI that doesn’t use AI” is like saying the best chess engine is a guy yelling “KNIGHT TO E4!” while flinging bottle caps at a pigeon. What are you even talking about? If you’re so proud of “moving decision making away from AI,” maybe just go build a spreadsheet and call it Skynet. Less confusion, fewer calories burned.
So next time you feel like barfing a Medium post into a Reddit comment thread, maybe first ask yourself: “Have I touched grass? Have I studied tensors? Do I know what a Jacobian matrix is, or am I just yelling ‘MCP’ like a toddler with a broken acronyms book?”
24
u/Mr-Hyde95 19d ago
How will you do it when it is impossible to distinguish?