id
stringlengths 7
26
| text_type
stringclasses 2
values | original_text
stringlengths 25
7.75k
| cot_response
stringclasses 1
value | domain
stringclasses 31
values | grpo_v5_3
stringlengths 310
815
| grpo_v7_1
stringlengths 371
841
| grpo_v7_2
stringlengths 389
844
| grpo_v7_3
stringlengths 342
872
| prompt
listlengths 2
2
| ground_truth
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_len
int64 157
1.89k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
human-1443
|
human
|
We are all capable of the horrendous act that Hitler committed or fostered in his life. The right circumstances and societal influences could bring out the same in each of us. I am definitely not supporting any of the atrocities he engaged in. But there is historical perspective that could perhaps explain some of his attitudes. The entire concept of eugenics fed right into his Aryan superiority complex. And war is war. People can justify all kinds of horrible things when in that mode. Again, I am thoroughly disgusted by what he did, but I do not discount the possibility that I am capable of horrible things myself if I do not keep a focus on continually learning and growing and evolving in a compassionate and empathetic manner.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a personal, inconsistent voice with contractions, self-deprecation, and hedged, tentative phrasing (e.g., 'I am definitely not...') typical of human online posts. Second, it contains small stylistic idiosyncrasies and repetition ('Again... again') and emotionally nuanced ambivalence that AI often smooth out. Moreover, it presents a specific, context-aware stance (condemning genocide yet acknowledging personal capacity for harm) reflecting lived perspective rather than generic generated text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a personal, conversational tone with hedging language ('I am definitely not...') and emotional nuance that align with human online discussion. Second, it contains small stylistic inconsistencies and colloquialisms ('But war is war', repeated 'again') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it avoids excessive generic filler and maintains a specific, personal stance instead of presenting balanced, neutral phrasing common in AI text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a personal, conversational tone with hedging language ('I am definitely not...') and emotional nuance that align with human online discussion. Second, it contains small stylistic inconsistencies and colloquialisms ('But war is war', repeated 'again') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it avoids excessive generic filler and maintains a specific, personal stance instead of producing overly balanced, neutral exposition common in AI text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage displays a personal, emotionally nuanced voice with contractions and self-reflection (e.g., 'I am definitely not supporting...') that aligns with human online discussion. Second, it contains minor stylistic inconsistencies, colloquialisms ('Again, I am thoroughly disgusted...'), and repetition common in spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the text expresses complex moral ambivalence and tentative language ('could perhaps explain', 'I do not discount the possibility') suggesting genuine human uncertainty instead of generic AI-generated balanced text. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: We are all capable of the horrendous act that Hitler committed or fostered in his life. The right circumstances and societal influences could bring out the same in each of us. I am definitely not supporting any of the atrocities he engaged in. But there is historical perspective that could perhaps explain some of his attitudes. The entire concept of eugenics fed right into his Aryan superiority complex. And war is war. People can justify all kinds of horrible things when in that mode. Again, I am thoroughly disgusted by what he did, but I do not discount the possibility that I am capable of horrible things myself if I do not keep a focus on continually learning and growing and evolving in a compassionate and empathetic manner.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 294
|
human-2139
|
human
|
First of all, I do have a problem with the manner in which drone strikes are carried out by the US, mainly the broad scope and language the Authorization for Use of Military Force grants POTUS. I am not arguing for or against the drone program or the the lack of transparency in which individuals are targeted. What I am arguing is, if you are outraged by his assassination then you should be outraged by the assassination every AQAP leader. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, is no different than the killing of any other AQAP leader in Yemen. He was engaged in an active armed conflict against the United States, he should be treated like any other high ranking AQAP leader that is actively planning to attack the US, it should make no difference where he was born. No one would argue that the killing of Confederate soldiers by Union soldiers was unjust and they were deprived of due process; they too where in an armed conflict against the US. During WWII many Americans defected to Germany and Japan, they too were killed. This is no different, why should Anwar al-Awlaki be given rights that a US citizen that defected to Germany during WWII didn't have? Anwar al-Awlaki is not a civilian; there was clear evidence that he has joined AQAP and has participated in planning attacks on the US. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, argumentative tone typical of human online posts. Second, it shows human-like errors and idiosyncrasies — a duplicated word 'the the', inconsistent capitalization, and personal rhetorical questions — patterns AI rarely produce so naturally. Moreover, the use of culturally specific references (Anwar al-Awlaki, WWII defections) and emotional engagement suggest lived opinion rather than generated neutrality. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, argumentative Reddit style consistent with human posting. Second, it shows typographical errors ('the the'), inconsistent spacing, and emotionally charged, loosely structured prose that humans commonly produce but AIs tend to smooth out. Moreover, it includes context-dependent references (CMV, moderators) and rhetorical questions suggesting lived experience and real-time interaction rather than generated text. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, argumentative Reddit tone consistent with human posting. Second, it shows typographical errors and repetition ('the the') and uneven phrasing suggesting casual human typing rather than polished AI generation. Moreover, it uses culturally specific references and rhetorical questions in a way typical of human discussion threads. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, anecdotal tone typical of human online posts. Second, it shows human-like errors and idiosyncrasies — a duplicated word ('the the'), casual phrasing ('where' for 'were'), and abrupt topic shifts — suggesting organic copying/typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argumentative emotional style and uneven structure align with human posting behavior. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: First of all, I do have a problem with the manner in which drone strikes are carried out by the US, mainly the broad scope and language the Authorization for Use of Military Force grants POTUS. I am not arguing for or against the drone program or the the lack of transparency in which individuals are targeted. What I am arguing is, if you are outraged by his assassination then you should be outraged by the assassination every AQAP leader. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, is no different than the killing of any other AQAP leader in Yemen. He was engaged in an active armed conflict against the United States, he should be treated like any other high ranking AQAP leader that is actively planning to attack the US, it should make no difference where he was born. No one would argue that the killing of Confederate soldiers by Union soldiers was unjust and they were deprived of due process; they too where in an armed conflict against the US. During WWII many Americans defected to Germany and Japan, they too were killed. This is no different, why should Anwar al-Awlaki be given rights that a US citizen that defected to Germany during WWII didn't have? Anwar al-Awlaki is not a civilian; there was clear evidence that he has joined AQAP and has participated in planning attacks on the US. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 540
|
human-1833
|
human
|
I think that there is a definite double standard between men and women. I think that it's possible for women to objectify guys like Ryan Gosling and Channing Tatum, while, if a guy says that Carmen Electra is hot, he's a sexist pig. I think that women can hit men all they want, but if a man even pretends to hit a woman, he's seen as a monster. But I really don't think that pointing out this gender divide will solve this divide. I'm tired of guys complaining about how they can't use the C word while the lady-folks can use the D word. I'm also tired of women oogling men while men can't even look at a woman without being accused of being pigs. CMV TL;DR: There is a gender double standard, but shut up about it. CMV
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a highly conversational, forum-specific voice (CMV, TL;DR) and includes community conventions that are typical of human social media posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic humor, personal frustration, and culturally specific references (Ryan Gosling, Channing Tatum, Carmen Electra) suggesting lived experience rather than generic AI output. Moreover, the writing contains small stylistic inconsistencies and emotional nuance—shifting opinions and rhetorical provocation—that align with human conversational patterns. Finally, these combined signals lead me to conclude HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a highly conversational, forum-specific voice (CMV, TL;DR) and includes community conventions that are typical of human social media posts. Second, it shows personal bias, emotional engagement, and idiosyncratic phrasings ('I'm also tired of...') suggesting spontaneous human expression rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it references niche cultural references and slang in a way that aligns with human posting behavior. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses highly conversational, community-specific markers (CMV, TL;DR) and a personal voice typical of Reddit-style human posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic humor, emotional engagement, and uneven phrasing ('I'm also tired of...') suggesting spontaneous human expression rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it references niche cultural references and social context in a way AIs less often produce naturally. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses highly conversational, community-specific markers (CMV, TL;DR) and a personal voice suggesting a Reddit-style human poster. Second, it contains idiosyncratic phrasings, emotional tone, and culturally specific references (Ryan Gosling, Channing Tatum, Carmen Electra) consistent with human spontaneity rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, blunt colloquialism, and rhetorical provocation point to human origin. Therefore my decision is HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I think that there is a definite double standard between men and women. I think that it's possible for women to objectify guys like Ryan Gosling and Channing Tatum, while, if a guy says that Carmen Electra is hot, he's a sexist pig. I think that women can hit men all they want, but if a man even pretends to hit a woman, he's seen as a monster. But I really don't think that pointing out this gender divide will solve this divide. I'm tired of guys complaining about how they can't use the C word while the lady-folks can use the D word. I'm also tired of women oogling men while men can't even look at a woman without being accused of being pigs. CMV TL;DR: There is a gender double standard, but shut up about it. CMV",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 326
|
human-1424
|
human
|
"Blackface," a white male painting his face black to perform as an racist caricature of a black person goes back a few hundred years in one way or another but didn't really catch on until the 1830s with comic Thomas Rice's song "Jump Jim Crow." The song was accompanied by a dance with Rice in blackface as the character Daddy Jim Crow. Incidentially, this is apparently where "Jim Crow laws" get their name. Blackface gradually gained popularity throughout the 1800s (as well as racist depictions of every other non-white race and non-American nationality), but was on its way out by the time Birth of a Nation was released in 1915. However it wouldn't be really flushed out until the 1930s, and it would live on in the UK until as late as 1981. Blackface was basically malicious bullying: it was never meant to be flattering, only disparaging in its inaccuracy. Ostensibly the psychology behind it all was one of fear an control. The caucasians of the time sought to comfrt themselves with comedy at the expense of other races as it helped them quell their fear of the unknown because it made the unknown seem a lot less threatening. So how exactly is this comparable to Andrew Garfield playing a transgendered individual? How exactly is Jared Leto intentionally disparaging with the intent of keeping transgendered men and women downtrodden? This comparison is almost offensive in and of itself: blackface is a pretty famous way (one of many, I'd imagine) that American whites oppressed African-Americans in the late-19th to early-20th centuries. It lasted for almost a hundred years as a acceptable form of entertainment. Repeat: blackface, a white man dressing as a black man solely to disparage and belittle him, was an acceptable form of entertainment for almost a hundred years. That's a really long time, right? How is that in any way comparable to two positive portrayals of transgendered people by non-transgendered men? This comparison fails to take into account the gravity of how awful blackface really is. Blackface was a mainstream acceptable form of what is basically bullying. It is in no way comparable. Blackface didn't even take jobs from African-Americans because the entire point of it was that you were seeing a white man playing a role, not an actual African-American. CMV
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post has a conversational, forum-style voice with personal markers ('CMV', rhetorical questions, asides) typical of human online posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic errors and informal spellings ('incidentialally'), inconsistent punctuation, and emotional emphasis that suggest spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it makes specific historical references and culturally grounded arguments in a context-aware way common to human contributors. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post has a conversational Reddit style (CMV, rhetorical questions, personal voice) and includes community-specific markers that suggest human posting. Second, there are multiple typographical errors and inconsistent word choices ('Incidentialally', 'comfrt') plus uneven sentence-level issues more typical of quick human typing than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument shows subjective bias, emotional engagement, and culturally specific references (Andrew Garfield, Jared Leto, Birth of a Nation) presented in a forum-like context rather than generically generated text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post has a conversational Reddit style (CMV, rhetorical questions, colloquial phrasing) and shows personal voice and emotional engagement typical of human forum posts. Second, there are multiple typos and inconsistent word choices ('Incidentialally', 'comfrt') suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is uneven, repetitive, and uses culturally specific references and moral indignation in a way common to human commenters. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post has a highly conversational, forum-style voice with personal markers ('CMV', rhetorical questions, emotional emphasis) typical of human online posts. Second, there are multiple typos and inconsistent spellings ('incidentialally', 'comfrt') suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument shows subjective judgment, repetition, and uneven organization—characteristics more common in human writing than in typically more uniform AI-generated text. For these reasons I judge the passage to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: \"Blackface,\" a white male painting his face black to perform as an racist caricature of a black person goes back a few hundred years in one way or another but didn't really catch on until the 1830s with comic Thomas Rice's song \"Jump Jim Crow.\" The song was accompanied by a dance with Rice in blackface as the character Daddy Jim Crow. Incidentially, this is apparently where \"Jim Crow laws\" get their name. Blackface gradually gained popularity throughout the 1800s (as well as racist depictions of every other non-white race and non-American nationality), but was on its way out by the time Birth of a Nation was released in 1915. However it wouldn't be really flushed out until the 1930s, and it would live on in the UK until as late as 1981. Blackface was basically malicious bullying: it was never meant to be flattering, only disparaging in its inaccuracy. Ostensibly the psychology behind it all was one of fear an control. The caucasians of the time sought to comfrt themselves with comedy at the expense of other races as it helped them quell their fear of the unknown because it made the unknown seem a lot less threatening. So how exactly is this comparable to Andrew Garfield playing a transgendered individual? How exactly is Jared Leto intentionally disparaging with the intent of keeping transgendered men and women downtrodden? This comparison is almost offensive in and of itself: blackface is a pretty famous way (one of many, I'd imagine) that American whites oppressed African-Americans in the late-19th to early-20th centuries. It lasted for almost a hundred years as a acceptable form of entertainment. Repeat: blackface, a white man dressing as a black man solely to disparage and belittle him, was an acceptable form of entertainment for almost a hundred years. That's a really long time, right? How is that in any way comparable to two positive portrayals of transgendered people by non-transgendered men? This comparison fails to take into account the gravity of how awful blackface really is. Blackface was a mainstream acceptable form of what is basically bullying. It is in no way comparable. Blackface didn't even take jobs from African-Americans because the entire point of it was that you were seeing a white man playing a role, not an actual African-American. CMV",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 651
|
human-2180
|
human
|
I believe that Transgenderism is, in fact, a mental disorder, akin to schizophrenia or depression. In fact, it was classified as such by the American Psychiatric Association until less than a year ago; that is part of why I hold this view. Furthermore, there is no physical manifestation of Transgenderism; it is all in the subject's mind. While we may not have a cure for it per se, just like we don't have a cure for depression or schizophrenia, that doesn't mean that something so drastic as a sex change and hormone therapy should be considered normal, or an acceptable treatment. I believe that in the future, as our understanding of the brain and mental health improves, we will be able to treat this condition as we currently treat a lot of other mental disorders; with drugs and targeted therapy.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses a personal, conversational voice with specific temporal markers ('less than a year ago') and anecdotal framing that is typical of human online posts. Second, it shows small stylistic inconsistencies and colloquial choices (e.g., 'per se', contractions) rather than uniformly polished AI output. Moreover, it presents nuanced, context-aware values and hedging about treatment and ethics suggesting lived perspective rather than generated generalities. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses a conversational, personal voice with contractions and rhetorical markers (e.g., 'I believe') that match human forum posts. Second, it shows small stylistic inconsistencies and colloquialisms ('In fact,' 'per se') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it makes a specific but tentative historical claim about APA classification and expresses personal values and hedging in a way typical of human opinion pieces. Based on these cues, I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage has a conversational, personal voice with colloquial transitions (e.g., 'In fact,' 'Furthermore') typical of human forum posts. Second, it shows small factual imprecision and subjective hedging ('until less than a year ago'; 'I believe') suggesting spontaneous human opinion rather than polished AI neutrality. Moreover, there are minor stylistic inconsistencies and rhetorical flourishes common in human writing (repetition, casual tone) instead of formulaic AI patterns. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage has a conversational, personal voice with colloquial transitions (e.g., 'In fact,' 'Furthermore') typical of human online posts. Second, it shows small factual imprecision and emotional bias (sudden shift from claim to justification) suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, there are minor stylistic inconsistencies and repetition ('I believe' twice, abrupt transitions) common in human drafts but less common in AI-generated text. Based on these signals, I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I believe that Transgenderism is, in fact, a mental disorder, akin to schizophrenia or depression. In fact, it was classified as such by the American Psychiatric Association until less than a year ago; that is part of why I hold this view. Furthermore, there is no physical manifestation of Transgenderism; it is all in the subject's mind. While we may not have a cure for it per se, just like we don't have a cure for depression or schizophrenia, that doesn't mean that something so drastic as a sex change and hormone therapy should be considered normal, or an acceptable treatment. I believe that in the future, as our understanding of the brain and mental health improves, we will be able to treat this condition as we currently treat a lot of other mental disorders; with drugs and targeted therapy.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 316
|
human-951
|
human
|
In pretty much any other situation, it's nearly universally agreed that an action that would otherwise be immoral does not suddenly become moral because the person you did it to did something bad first. I see no reason why this principle should not be applied to the case in which you attack someone who attacked you. Some might argue that self-defense is justified because it prevents the immediate threat to your own rights, but unless we're taking the full Machiavellian position that any action is justified if it leads to a favorable outcome (which is completely indefensible), there must be some limits to what actions are justified to reach a desired outcome. I contend that taking someone's life is the bare minimum of what should never be allowed under any circumstances. The right to life is the most fundamental human right, and it's wrong to take away that right from anyone for any reason.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses polished, balanced language and generic transitional phrases ('In pretty much any other situation...'), a common trait of AI-generated text aiming for neutrality. Second, it avoids personal idiosyncrasies or concrete details and relies on abstract hedging ('some might argue', 'I contend') rather than specific lived experience, suggesting algorithmic generation. Moreover, it presents a well-structured, moderate tone with few stylistic slips and smooth transitions, typical of AI outputs. For these reasons I judge the text to be AI",
"verdict": "AI"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses polished, balanced language and smooth transitions with few personal idiosyncrasies, a pattern common in AI-generated text. Second, it avoids concrete examples and relies on abstract hedging ('some might argue') while asserting strong normative claims (e.g., 'the right to life... the bare minimum... never be allowed'), suggesting algorithmic generalization rather than lived experience. Moreover, there are small stylistic oddities—repetitive openings ('In...'), even pacing, and mild over-formality—that often appear in AI outputs. For these reasons I judge the text to be AI",
"verdict": "AI"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses polished, balanced language and smooth transitions with few personal idiosyncrasies, a pattern common in AI-generated text. Second, it avoids concrete examples and relies on abstract hedging ('some might argue') while making bold absolutist claims (e.g., 'the right to life... the bare minimum...'), suggesting algorithmic generalization rather than lived experience. Moreover, there are minor redundancies and mechanical transitions like 'I see no reason...' typical of AI outputs. For these reasons I judge the text to be AI",
"verdict": "AI"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses polished, balanced language and smooth transitions without personal idiosyncrasies, suggesting algorithmic consistency rather than a distinct human voice. Second, it avoids concrete examples and relies on abstract hedging ('some might argue'), a common trait of AI-generated text aiming for neutrality. Moreover, there are mild redundancies and formulaic constructions ('In pretty much any other situation...') typical of AI outputs trained to generalize. Based on these patterns, I judge the text to be AI",
"verdict": "AI"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: In pretty much any other situation, it's nearly universally agreed that an action that would otherwise be immoral does not suddenly become moral because the person you did it to did something bad first. I see no reason why this principle should not be applied to the case in which you attack someone who attacked you. Some might argue that self-defense is justified because it prevents the immediate threat to your own rights, but unless we're taking the full Machiavellian position that any action is justified if it leads to a favorable outcome (which is completely indefensible), there must be some limits to what actions are justified to reach a desired outcome. I contend that taking someone's life is the bare minimum of what should never be allowed under any circumstances. The right to life is the most fundamental human right, and it's wrong to take away that right from anyone for any reason.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 324
|
human-1338
|
human
|
Whenever a person of the male gender argues on the side of feminism or other forms of equality, they are labeled as being a "white knight" or a "social justice warrior." They are also accused of having self-profiting motivations rather than genuine motivations. For example, they may be accused of "stirring the pot" or "attempting to get more views on their website" or "wanting to sleep with feminists by siding with them." How do we know that? What if they genuinely want to help people and are not out for the sake of their own profit? Isn't it possible they are fighting what they believe in, regardless whether those beliefs are true or foolish? So, when Bob Chipman or Jim Sterling or Tom Preston or Aaron Diaz or David Willis or whoever else argues on behalf of females or social justice, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're fighting for whatever they believe in, even if those beliefs are found to be foolish in the end? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, anecdotal tone typical of human online posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasings, rhetorical questions, and mild inconsistencies that suggest spontaneous human composition rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the presence of community-sourced meta-text ('Hello, users of CMV...') strongly indicates copy-paste from a real Reddit thread. Finally, these combined signals lead me to conclude HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, anecdotal tone typical of human online posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasings, rhetorical questions, and small inconsistencies (e.g., 'How do we know that?') suggesting spontaneous human composition rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the presence of community-specific examples and meta-text ('This is a footnote from your moderators') aligns with copied human forum content. Therefore I judge this text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed link placeholders) and colloquial, context-rich references ('Bob Chipman... or David Willis') consistent with copied human forum text. Second, there are small stylistic inconsistencies, rhetorical questions, and mild repetition that suggest spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the presence of community-specific conventions (moderator note, downvote explanation) points to real-user origin. Therefore I judge this text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, named posters) and colloquial, context-dependent phrasing typical of human online discussion. Second, there are small inconsistencies and stylistic idiosyncrasies (repetition, casual tone, bracketed link placeholders) suggesting copy-paste from a real thread rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional, rhetorical questions and uneven register align with human conversational patterns instead of the usually more uniform AI-generated text. Therefore I judge this text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Whenever a person of the male gender argues on the side of feminism or other forms of equality, they are labeled as being a \"white knight\" or a \"social justice warrior.\" They are also accused of having self-profiting motivations rather than genuine motivations. For example, they may be accused of \"stirring the pot\" or \"attempting to get more views on their website\" or \"wanting to sleep with feminists by siding with them.\" How do we know that? What if they genuinely want to help people and are not out for the sake of their own profit? Isn't it possible they are fighting what they believe in, regardless whether those beliefs are true or foolish? So, when Bob Chipman or Jim Sterling or Tom Preston or Aaron Diaz or David Willis or whoever else argues on behalf of females or social justice, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're fighting for whatever they believe in, even if those beliefs are found to be foolish in the end? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 468
|
human-963
|
human
|
Yesterday, it was announced that [the US Marine Corps. was delaying it's female fitness plan] after less than half its female recruits could do the minimum of three pull-ups. Then there's the story of [Wendy Tapia] , who despite failing a required FDNY running test five times (a 1.5 mile run in 12 minutes without gear), was allowed to graduate from the Fire Academy and become a firefighter. In Sweden, despite a leak that [that female firefighters take more than 10 minutes to break through a secured door] , the law mandates that they cannot be fired. Now, I would never advocate for being allowed to ban women from these jobs. If you can meet the standards, you can do the job, period. However, it's one thing to ban profiling based on gender (you can't try out to be a firefighter because you're a girl), but another thing to change standards in order to get an equal outcome (lower standards for women). It's downright dangerous to lower the physical standards for military, firefighting, policing, et cetera just to get more women involved. I understand that there are physical differences between men and women, but you know what doesn't understand that? Fires. A fire isn't going to say "Oh, the firefighter is a female, let me put myself out." Long story short, physical standards should never be lessened for the sole purpose of opening the door to more female candidates in careers such as the military, firefighting, and policing. CMV. Edit: Unfortunately, after reading through this entire thread, my view has not been changed and I did not reward a single delta . A couple of points on the possibility that some tests are unfairly biased towards men and have no merit in measuring job ability were well argued and definitely had me thinking; however, I remain unconvinced that we should change the physical standards for the sole purpose of opening the door to more female candidates, nor that gender diversity in these fields is important enough to risk employing unqualified individuals, male or female.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows forum-specific markers ('CMV', 'Edit:', 'delta') and a conversational, self-correcting tone typical of human online discussion. Second, it contains idiosyncratic errors and stylistic quirks (misused ellipses, inconsistent spacing, bracketed asides) that AI rarely produce so naturally. Moreover, it includes personal history and interactive elements ('I did not reward a single delta') suggesting lived experience rather than generated content. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows forum-specific markers ('CMV', 'Edit:', 'delta') and a conversational, self-correcting tone typical of human online discussion. Second, it contains idiosyncratic errors and stylistic quirks (misused ellipses, inconsistent spacing, bracketed link placeholders) suggesting casual human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it includes personal history and interactive elements ('After reading through this entire thread...') which are common in human posts. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows forum-specific markers ('CMV', 'Edit:', 'delta') and a conversational, self-correcting tone typical of human online discussion. Second, it contains idiosyncratic errors and stylistic quirks (misused ellipses, inconsistent spacing, bracketed link placeholders) suggesting casual human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it includes personal history and interactive elements ('I did not reward a single delta') indicating iterative human engagement. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post displays a highly conversational, forum-specific voice with markers like 'CMV', 'Edit:', bracketed links, and personal deltas which are typical of human Reddit posts. Second, it contains idiosyncratic phrasings, emotional hedging ('I would never advocate...'), and uneven structure suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it references contextual threads and community norms in a way AI rarely replicates so naturally. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Yesterday, it was announced that [the US Marine Corps. was delaying it's female fitness plan] after less than half its female recruits could do the minimum of three pull-ups. Then there's the story of [Wendy Tapia] , who despite failing a required FDNY running test five times (a 1.5 mile run in 12 minutes without gear), was allowed to graduate from the Fire Academy and become a firefighter. In Sweden, despite a leak that [that female firefighters take more than 10 minutes to break through a secured door] , the law mandates that they cannot be fired. Now, I would never advocate for being allowed to ban women from these jobs. If you can meet the standards, you can do the job, period. However, it's one thing to ban profiling based on gender (you can't try out to be a firefighter because you're a girl), but another thing to change standards in order to get an equal outcome (lower standards for women). It's downright dangerous to lower the physical standards for military, firefighting, policing, et cetera just to get more women involved. I understand that there are physical differences between men and women, but you know what doesn't understand that? Fires. A fire isn't going to say \"Oh, the firefighter is a female, let me put myself out.\" Long story short, physical standards should never be lessened for the sole purpose of opening the door to more female candidates in careers such as the military, firefighting, and policing. CMV. Edit: Unfortunately, after reading through this entire thread, my view has not been changed and I did not reward a single delta . A couple of points on the possibility that some tests are unfairly biased towards men and have no merit in measuring job ability were well argued and definitely had me thinking; however, I remain unconvinced that we should change the physical standards for the sole purpose of opening the door to more female candidates, nor that gender diversity in these fields is important enough to risk employing unqualified individuals, male or female.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 571
|
human-858
|
human
|
I suspect that rMensRights will be the more controversial of these choices. Anyways, I should clarify what I mean. These kinds of subs "leak" into the rest of reddit, while tainting it's image. Most of the people I know have hear of reddit either as as home for pedophiles, or a sexist racist mess. Ignoring whether their respective majorities need more rights (another CMV for another day), I think they damage both reddit's quality and it's image. I should reinforce that I don't think they should be banned, I just think they are shit.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows colloquial, context-specific markers like 'Anyways' and 'CMV' and uses profanity and personal asides in a way typical of human online comments. Second, there are small typos and repetition ('as as') and inconsistent grammar that suggest spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument has emotional bias, local knowledge (subreddits, pedophiles, racism) and conversational pacing consistent with a real person's opinion piece. For these reasons I judge this text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses casual, forum-specific language ('Anyways', 'CMV') and shows typographical slips ('as as') consistent with spontaneous human typing. Second, it displays strong personal voice, profanity, and inconsistent grammar/usage ('it's image' followed by misuse of 'its') suggesting human error rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure and local context references point to a real user's quick reply rather than generated text. Therefore my decision is HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses casual, forum-specific language and slang ('Anyways', 'CMV') and shows typographical slips ('as as') consistent with spontaneous human typing. Second, there are inconsistent grammar choices and colloquial repetition ('it's image' then 'I should clarify...') suggesting human inconsistency rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional tone, profanity, and personal hedging ('I suspect...', 'I just think...') align with human conversational posting patterns. For these reasons I judge this text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows colloquial, context-specific Reddit behavior (use of 'as as' and 'CMV') and small typos/grammatical slips ('have hear of reddit') typical of spontaneous human typing. Second, it contains strong personal voice, profanity, and emotionally nuanced uncertainty ('I suspect...'), suggesting genuine human emotion rather than polished AI output. Moreover, there is uneven structure and repetition consistent with quick human composition instead of the more uniformly structured prose AIs often generate. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I suspect that rMensRights will be the more controversial of these choices. Anyways, I should clarify what I mean. These kinds of subs \"leak\" into the rest of reddit, while tainting it's image. Most of the people I know have hear of reddit either as as home for pedophiles, or a sexist racist mess. Ignoring whether their respective majorities need more rights (another CMV for another day), I think they damage both reddit's quality and it's image. I should reinforce that I don't think they should be banned, I just think they are shit.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 273
|
human-173
|
human
|
Subjective sports cheapen Olympic medals, in an objective sport, the first person across the line of the team with the most goals wins. In a subjective sport, judges cannot help but be biased towards people that they perceive as being good, or from countries that they like. It's a psychological thing. On top of that, Equestrian isn't a contest of skill, but rather a contest of bank accounts. List of subjective Olympic sports: -GymnasticsRythmic Gymnastics -Equestrian -figure skatingice dancing -Freestyle Skiingsnowboarding -synchronised swimming -Trampoline
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a casual, conversational tone with personal asides ('It's a psychological thing') and inconsistent formatting/typos (e.g., 'GymnasticsRythmic', missing space after '-'), which are typical of quick human writing. Second, it contains specific cultural references and idiosyncratic phrasings ('List of subjective Olympic sports...') suggesting individual taste rather than polished AI output. Moreover, there are small factual imprecisions and stylistic slips that AI usually avoid when generating coherent text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows colloquial phrasing, inconsistent punctuation/capitalization (e.g., 'List of subjective Olympic sports...' with no list) and typographical errors ('GymnasticsRythmic') typical of quick human typing. Second, it contains personal voice and opinionated asides ('It's a psychological thing'), plus uneven organization and repetition suggesting human stream-of-consciousness rather than polished AI output. Moreover, there are small factual imprecisions and idiosyncratic choices (mixing disciplines, missing hyphens) more common in human drafts. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows casual, conversational phrasing and idiosyncratic errors (e.g., 'GymnasticsRythmic') more typical of quick human typing than polished AI output. Second, it contains personal voice ('It's a psychological thing'), inconsistent structure, and list formatting suggesting human note-taking. Moreover, there are small factual imprecisions and stylistic slips (hyphen usage, missing spaces) common in human drafts. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows abrupt topic shifts, mechanical transitions ('On top of that'), and inconsistent tone (serious then slang), patterns common in AI-generated text. Second, there are token-level oddities—stray spaces before punctuation, concatenated words ('GymnasticsRythmic'), and repetitive 'in...in' phrasing—that suggest algorithmic assembly rather than careful human editing. Moreover, the list is generic and lacks coherent linking, another hallmark of AI outputs. For these reasons I judge the text to be AI",
"verdict": "AI"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Subjective sports cheapen Olympic medals, in an objective sport, the first person across the line of the team with the most goals wins. In a subjective sport, judges cannot help but be biased towards people that they perceive as being good, or from countries that they like. It's a psychological thing. On top of that, Equestrian isn't a contest of skill, but rather a contest of bank accounts. List of subjective Olympic sports: -GymnasticsRythmic Gymnastics -Equestrian -figure skatingice dancing -Freestyle Skiingsnowboarding -synchronised swimming -Trampoline",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 275
|
human-1770
|
human
|
EDIT: Dear guitarists of Reddit, thank you for some amazing comments! Although I have realised my view is far too vague to be debated with good results, if I were to re-submit the same sort of view to this sub-reddit I would make it a lot more precise. Once again, a rude comment won't get you anything but reported. The whole point of this sub reddit is to do with debating something who thinks differently to you, just simply shouting out rude comments and being mean because I don't appreciate your little electric guitar fandom as much as you, isn't going to change my view. So tbh it means you would have failed in your attempt. In my opinion, as both an electric and classical guitar player (however a lot more classical than electric). I believe that it's a lot easier to play electric in pretty much every way. Classical guitar takes a lot more skill, time and technique to play to a good standard compared to most electric guitars do. I also believe that it is a lot more impressive to hear and see someone play a classical (Spanish) piece on guitar compared to seeing someone play something on an electric guitar. What's your opinions on what is harder to master and more impressive to play? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (EDIT tag, subreddit conventions, moderator footnote with bracketed links) and casual, idiosyncratic phrasing typical of human posts. Second, there are small inconsistencies, colloquialisms ('tbh'), and uneven punctuation/spacing that suggest spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional, context-aware tone responding to comments and referencing community norms matches human conversational behavior. Finally, these combined signals lead me to conclude HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, community-specific markers (EDIT tag, subreddit conventions, moderator footnote with bracketed links) that match real Reddit posts rather than generic AI output. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasings, small grammatical slips, and conversational tone ('tbh', uneven punctuation) typical of human typing. Moreover, the argumentative back-and-forth style and localized cultural references (guitar fandom, CMV moderation language) suggest lived experience and copying from a real thread. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, community-specific markers (EDIT tag, subreddit conventions, moderator footnote with bracketed links) consistent with a copied Reddit post rather than AI-generated generic text. Second, there are small stylistic inconsistencies, colloquialisms ('tbh'), and minor grammatical slips ('What's your opinions...') typical of spontaneous human typing. Moreover, the emotional tone, personal details (electric and classical playing experience), and meta-comments about reporting and CMV match human conversational posting patterns. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, community-specific markers (EDIT tag, subreddit conventions, moderator footnote) consistent with a copied Reddit post rather than AI-generated generic text. Second, it shows human-like idiosyncrasies — casual shorthand (tbh), uneven punctuation, personal asides, and small factual slips — suggesting spontaneous human typing. Moreover, the conversational tone, rhetorical questions, and culturally grounded details (electric vs classical guitar, CMV moderation language) align with human-authored forum content. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: EDIT: Dear guitarists of Reddit, thank you for some amazing comments! Although I have realised my view is far too vague to be debated with good results, if I were to re-submit the same sort of view to this sub-reddit I would make it a lot more precise. Once again, a rude comment won't get you anything but reported. The whole point of this sub reddit is to do with debating something who thinks differently to you, just simply shouting out rude comments and being mean because I don't appreciate your little electric guitar fandom as much as you, isn't going to change my view. So tbh it means you would have failed in your attempt. In my opinion, as both an electric and classical guitar player (however a lot more classical than electric). I believe that it's a lot easier to play electric in pretty much every way. Classical guitar takes a lot more skill, time and technique to play to a good standard compared to most electric guitars do. I also believe that it is a lot more impressive to hear and see someone play a classical (Spanish) piece on guitar compared to seeing someone play something on an electric guitar. What's your opinions on what is harder to master and more impressive to play? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 515
|
human-1420
|
human
|
Reposting is probably one of, if not the most often bemoaned actions on Reddit. Users are incredibly quick to point out if content has been posted before, especially in TIL, either as some strange form of boast or by negating the OP. Frequently I look into the comments section for more info or commentary on the post, only to find the top comments are about reposting. Not only is it annoying for users, but it may put people off posting, without any real benefit. I would be interested to see what reddit consisted of if we only allowed purely OC that was created by the user. Or is there a benefit? It appears to me that the people who post calling out reposts and suggesting OP is a karma whore are only doing so for karma themselves. Maybe you guys know of some reasons why calling out reposts is productive. Cmv.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses colloquial, context-specific markers (TIL, OP, CMv) and a personal voice typical of forum posts. Second, it shows nuanced opinion, rhetorical questions, and mild stylistic inconsistencies that humans commonly produce whereas AI outputs often smooth or overexplain. Moreover, the emotional stance and local social references suggest lived experience rather than generic generated text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses colloquial, context-specific forum language (e.g., 'Cmv', 'OP', 'TIL') and shows personal, opinionated nuance typical of human posts. Second, it contains small stylistic inconsistencies and rhetorical questions ('Or is there a benefit?') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional stance and local social references (karma whore, CMv) reflect lived experience on Reddit. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses colloquial, context-specific forum language (e.g., 'Cmv', 'OP', 'TIL') and shows personal, idiosyncratic phrasing typical of human posts. Second, it contains minor stylistic inconsistencies and rhetorical questions ('Or is there a benefit?') suggesting spontaneous human thought rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it references community norms and local discussion in a way that feels experiential and interpersonal, which AIs less commonly emulate convincingly. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific conventions (TIL, OP, CMv) and a conversational, idiosyncratic tone typical of human casual posts. Second, it shows small stylistic inconsistencies and personal hedging ('I would be interested...') rather than polished, overly generic AI output. Moreover, the emotional nuance and targeted community critique suggest lived experience rather than generated generalities. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Reposting is probably one of, if not the most often bemoaned actions on Reddit. Users are incredibly quick to point out if content has been posted before, especially in TIL, either as some strange form of boast or by negating the OP. Frequently I look into the comments section for more info or commentary on the post, only to find the top comments are about reposting. Not only is it annoying for users, but it may put people off posting, without any real benefit. I would be interested to see what reddit consisted of if we only allowed purely OC that was created by the user. Or is there a benefit? It appears to me that the people who post calling out reposts and suggesting OP is a karma whore are only doing so for karma themselves. Maybe you guys know of some reasons why calling out reposts is productive. Cmv.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 326
|
human-248
|
human
|
(quick note: I am in general OK with people using seximracismwhat-have-you jokingly. In specific instances in can be bad, but that isn't really what this CMV is about) I often see people who are otherwise in favor of gender equality use the phrase 'man up' to tell people that they are being a coward and need to stop being such a coward, and I have no idea how they reconcile this. Sure you can use the justification that the intent isn't sexist, but no matter how you swing it, the phrase implies that non-cowardice is a specifically male quality.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage has a conversational, forum-specific voice with typos and idiosyncratic phrasings ('in general OK', 'seximracismwhat-have-you') that match human casual posting. Second, it shows personal context, emotional nuance, and uneven sentence-level errors rather than polished, consistently structured output typical of AI. Moreover, the argument is contextually grounded and colloquial, suggesting lived experience rather than generated generic text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses casual, forum-specific phrasing ('CMV') and includes personal context ('I am in general OK...'), which matches human conversational posting. Second, there are small typos and idiosyncrasies ('in specific instances in can be bad', 'seximracismwhat-have-you') suggesting spontaneous typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument shows nuanced, experience-based reasoning and uneven sentence flow typical of human authors. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses casual, forum-specific language ('CMV') and personal context ('I am in general OK...'), which matches human online posting patterns. Second, there are typographical slips and uneven punctuation ('in specific instances in can be bad') suggesting spontaneous typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument shows idiosyncratic phrasing and emotional nuance about social reconciliation that AI typically struggles to convey so naturally. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses casual, forum-specific language ('CMV') and personal context ('I am in general OK...'), suggesting a human conversational tone. Second, there are typographical slips and uneven punctuation ('in specific instances in can be bad') typical of quick human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument shows idiosyncratic phrasing and emotional nuance about social dynamics that AI rarely produces so naturally. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: (quick note: I am in general OK with people using seximracismwhat-have-you jokingly. In specific instances in can be bad, but that isn't really what this CMV is about) I often see people who are otherwise in favor of gender equality use the phrase 'man up' to tell people that they are being a coward and need to stop being such a coward, and I have no idea how they reconcile this. Sure you can use the justification that the intent isn't sexist, but no matter how you swing it, the phrase implies that non-cowardice is a specifically male quality.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 274
|
human-2091
|
human
|
Pretty self-explanatory title. I don't think Nightmares 3 - 6 (Freddy's Dead) were meant to scare people, they were slasher comedies. In Dream Warriors (3) the kills were comedic in nature (including my all-time favorite: "Welcome to Prime Time, Bitch!, and apart from Kristen, none of the kids were especially sympathetic figures. Similarly, 4, 5, and 6 were extremely cartoonish, and rather than being invested in the kids survival, the appeal in those movies was seeing what wacky new method Freddy would use to kill them. To be clear, 1 and 2 were horror movies: "A Nightmare on Elm Street" was legitimately scary; and ridiculously blatant gay-erotica overtones aside, Nightmare 2 was still a horror movie. To change my view, convince me that Nightmares 3 - 6 were actually trying to scare people, because as a fan of the franchise, I just don't see it. Not Included In This Discussion: Wes Craven's New Nightmare That was an aberration, not included in the original storyline or series. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Just a remake of the original. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, idiosyncratic voice consistent with human online posting. Second, it shows personal taste, casual digressions, and inconsistent punctuation/parentheses that are typical of spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the cultural specificity and meta-comments (e.g., changing your view, not including Wes Craven's New Nightmare) reflect lived experience and context awareness common in human replies. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, anecdotal tone typical of human online posts. Second, there are small inconsistencies, colloquial phrasings, and copy-paste artifacts (mismatched quotes, odd spacing) suggesting manual editing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the personal voice, hedging ('I don't think...'), and context-dependent references (Nightmares 3–6, 2010 remake) reflect lived experience and temporality common in human writing. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, anecdotal tone typical of human online posts. Second, there are small inconsistencies, colloquial phrasings, and copy-paste artifacts (mismatched quotes, spacing, and explicit 'Not Included...') suggesting manual editing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the personal voice, hedging ('I don't think...', 'Because a fan...') and uneven structure point to human authorship. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, anecdotal tone consistent with human online posting. Second, there are idiosyncratic errors and informal phrasings (e.g., mismatched quotes, missing spaces) suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the mixed registers and personal asides point to human authorship. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Pretty self-explanatory title. I don't think Nightmares 3 - 6 (Freddy's Dead) were meant to scare people, they were slasher comedies. In Dream Warriors (3) the kills were comedic in nature (including my all-time favorite: \"Welcome to Prime Time, Bitch!, and apart from Kristen, none of the kids were especially sympathetic figures. Similarly, 4, 5, and 6 were extremely cartoonish, and rather than being invested in the kids survival, the appeal in those movies was seeing what wacky new method Freddy would use to kill them. To be clear, 1 and 2 were horror movies: \"A Nightmare on Elm Street\" was legitimately scary; and ridiculously blatant gay-erotica overtones aside, Nightmare 2 was still a horror movie. To change my view, convince me that Nightmares 3 - 6 were actually trying to scare people, because as a fan of the franchise, I just don't see it. Not Included In This Discussion: Wes Craven's New Nightmare That was an aberration, not included in the original storyline or series. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Just a remake of the original. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 518
|
human-1422
|
human
|
I know there's a lot that goes along with this (that I will try to address sufficiently below)... but for a tl;dr my reasoning is that if other nations don't hate us, we won't have to spend ridiculous amounts of money on the military because no big conflict will arise. Now I know this is an extremely complicated matter so I'd like to address a few things. Firstly by "spreading goodwill" I mean a huge, official initiative to help out other countries, a larger scale of aid to improve the quality of life. This isn't the kind of aid that has the condition, "we'll give this if we can put a military base here" - the U.S. would ask nothing in return. I admire what Brazil is doing to make themselves a leader in peace, but most people don't even realize they are becoming that - I believe the U.S. should be very vocal about their good deeds so people actually know it. Now some nations have a real deep hatred for us, and with all the meddling we have done in the past it's hard to blame them. So mayve doing this won't do a damn thing for them; many of the rural populations of the world will have no idea it's the U.S. sending them all this aid. Even though, I think many of the leaders of opposing nations wouldn't want to harm someone who is not only helping them out but also has helped out everyone else (who would likely come to the U.S. aid or not ally with the enemy). We would not just cut out 400 billion on the budget overnight; the military roots run deep in the U.S. and something like that cannot be undone fast. So my supposed goodwill campaign would be a many year plan where the budget is broken down little by little. Jobs that were supported by the millitary would be lost, but new jobs would result from this program too. I know this is a very idealized situation and would never happen, but I've always thought about it and never really thought of a downside to being nice to people.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a conversational, idiosyncratic voice with colloquialisms ('tl;dr'), contractions, and typographical slips ('mayve', 'millitary') that are typical of human typing. Second, it contains personal hedging, moral ambivalence, and uneven organization—narrative digressions and self-corrections suggesting lived thinking rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument includes culturally specific references (Brazil, U.S.) and pragmatic details about budgets and jobs that read like individual opinion rather than generic model-generated text. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a highly conversational, forum-style voice with personal hedging ('I know', 'I've always thought') and includes casual typos/colloquialisms ('mayve', 'tl;dr') typical of human online writing. Second, it shows nuanced uncertainty, self-correction, and specific cultural references (Brazil, U.S.) presented in a spontaneous, unpolished way rather than the more uniform, overly polished patterns common in AI outputs. Moreover, there are small inconsistencies and stylistic idiosyncrasies suggesting individual authorship rather than algorithmic generation. Therefore my decision is HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a conversational, idiosyncratic voice with colloquialisms ('tl;dr'), contractions ('mayve'), and typographical slips ('millitary') typical of human forum writing. Second, it contains personal hedging, uneven structure, and specific cultural references (Brazil, 400 billion) suggesting lived perspective rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument has small logical digressions and stylistic inconsistencies common in human drafts instead of the more uniform patterns AI often generates. For these reasons I judge the passage to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a highly conversational, idiosyncratic voice with personal hedging ('I know', 'I've always thought') and forum-specific cues (tl;dr, parentheses, slang) typical of human online writing. Second, it contains small errors and stylistic inconsistencies (misspelling 'mayve', casual contractions, uneven punctuation) suggesting spontaneous human composition rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is tentative, locally grounded, and emotionally driven—characteristics common in human-authored opinion pieces. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I know there's a lot that goes along with this (that I will try to address sufficiently below)... but for a tl;dr my reasoning is that if other nations don't hate us, we won't have to spend ridiculous amounts of money on the military because no big conflict will arise. Now I know this is an extremely complicated matter so I'd like to address a few things. Firstly by \"spreading goodwill\" I mean a huge, official initiative to help out other countries, a larger scale of aid to improve the quality of life. This isn't the kind of aid that has the condition, \"we'll give this if we can put a military base here\" - the U.S. would ask nothing in return. I admire what Brazil is doing to make themselves a leader in peace, but most people don't even realize they are becoming that - I believe the U.S. should be very vocal about their good deeds so people actually know it. Now some nations have a real deep hatred for us, and with all the meddling we have done in the past it's hard to blame them. So mayve doing this won't do a damn thing for them; many of the rural populations of the world will have no idea it's the U.S. sending them all this aid. Even though, I think many of the leaders of opposing nations wouldn't want to harm someone who is not only helping them out but also has helped out everyone else (who would likely come to the U.S. aid or not ally with the enemy). We would not just cut out 400 billion on the budget overnight; the military roots run deep in the U.S. and something like that cannot be undone fast. So my supposed goodwill campaign would be a many year plan where the budget is broken down little by little. Jobs that were supported by the millitary would be lost, but new jobs would result from this program too. I know this is a very idealized situation and would never happen, but I've always thought about it and never really thought of a downside to being nice to people.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 572
|
human-2184
|
human
|
I'm not confident that we can avert global warming. If we all acted in unison, today, we could almost certainly fix the problem. I don't know we will. I think even if we do fix this problem, we've only delayed the greater problem (habitability problems) by a few millennia. As long as we're on Earth, we're vulnerable. There's no question we have big problems on Earth, economically places are terrible, people die of starvation when there's absolutely no need, etc, etc. All of those problems pale in comparison to the overwhelming problem of the long term preservation of the human race. Getting a self sustaining, isolated environment off of Earth, at least as a pilot program but ideally that can continue to fabricate new facilities, should be the first and foremost goal (beyond self perpetuation) of every single entity which claims to represent the best interests of its constituency. Well, go on, CMV.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a casual, forum-specific voice ('Well, go on, CMV') and includes community conventions like 'etc, etc' and personal hedging ('I'm not confident...'), which are typical of human online posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasings and small grammatical slips ('economically places are terrible') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is conversational, emotionally toned, and grounded in personal opinion with uneven precision—features common in human-authored opinion pieces. For these reasons I judge the passage to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a casual, conversational tone with forum-specific shorthand ('CMV') and personal hedging ('I'm not confident...'), matching typical human online posting. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasings ('economically places are terrible', 'etc, etc') and small grammatical slips that humans commonly make but AI usually avoid or smooth out. Moreover, the argument has emotional emphasis, rhetorical flourishes, and a direct engagement with readers suggesting lived experience rather than generated neutrality. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a casual, conversational tone with forum-specific shorthand ('CMV') and personal hedging ('I'm not confident...'), patterns common in human online posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasings and small grammatical slips ('economically places are terrible', 'etc, etc') suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is emotionally driven and unevenly structured in a way typical of human opinion writing instead of the more uniformly balanced, formulaic style AIs often produce. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a highly conversational, forum-specific voice ('Go on, CMV') and personal uncertainty markers ('I'm not confident...'), suggesting a human Reddit-style poster. Second, it shows colloquial fillers ('etc, etc'), uneven phrasing ('economically places are terrible'), and small stylistic slips that humans commonly make while AIs tend toward more polished consistency. Moreover, the argument is exploratory and emotionally grounded rather than overly generic or formulaic, aligning with human spontaneous writing. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I'm not confident that we can avert global warming. If we all acted in unison, today, we could almost certainly fix the problem. I don't know we will. I think even if we do fix this problem, we've only delayed the greater problem (habitability problems) by a few millennia. As long as we're on Earth, we're vulnerable. There's no question we have big problems on Earth, economically places are terrible, people die of starvation when there's absolutely no need, etc, etc. All of those problems pale in comparison to the overwhelming problem of the long term preservation of the human race. Getting a self sustaining, isolated environment off of Earth, at least as a pilot program but ideally that can continue to fabricate new facilities, should be the first and foremost goal (beyond self perpetuation) of every single entity which claims to represent the best interests of its constituency. Well, go on, CMV.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 343
|
human-1471
|
human
|
I don't understand why people support the Palestinian cause. Palestinian nationalism is baseless, and Palestinian groups with nationalistic aspirations use extremely violent means to persuade the Israeli state to give Palestinian people more rights. How can it be said that they deserve it after all of the murders they have committed? While I might not agree with the tenets of Zionism, Israel IS a Jewish state. Can someone please explain this to me, and potentially change my view?
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a personal, conversational voice with direct questions and emotional engagement ('Can someone please explain...'), which is typical of human online posts. Second, it shows nuanced, context-aware beliefs (support for Palestinians' rights while opposing violence) and avoids generic, overly polished AI patterns, instead using colloquial contractions and emphasis like 'IS'. Moreover, there are small stylistic idiosyncrasies and rhetorical choices suggesting individual expression rather than algorithmic generation. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a personal, conversational tone with direct questions and emotional engagement ('Can someone please explain...'), which matches human online posting patterns. Second, it shows small stylistic inconsistencies (contraction 'don't', emphatic 'IS' in parentheses, comma placement) suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it expresses nuanced, context-aware uncertainty about political positions in a way common to human interlocutors. Based on these cues, I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a personal, conversational tone with direct questions and emotional engagement ('Can someone please explain...'), which is typical of human online posts. Second, there are small stylistic inconsistencies (all-caps 'IS', casual phrasing) suggesting spontaneous typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it expresses nuanced, context-aware uncertainty about political positions in a way common to human discussion threads. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a highly conversational, forum-style voice with personal uncertainty and direct appeal for persuasion (\"Can someone please explain...\"), which matches human online behavior. Second, it shows emotional investment, colloquial emphasis (ALL CAPS \"IS\") and small stylistic inconsistencies (slang 'persuade' paired with formal 'tenets') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it lacks common AI patterns like excessive hedging, mechanical repetition, or overly balanced exposition and instead displays genuine rhetorical urgency. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I don't understand why people support the Palestinian cause. Palestinian nationalism is baseless, and Palestinian groups with nationalistic aspirations use extremely violent means to persuade the Israeli state to give Palestinian people more rights. How can it be said that they deserve it after all of the murders they have committed? While I might not agree with the tenets of Zionism, Israel IS a Jewish state. Can someone please explain this to me, and potentially change my view?",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 241
|
human-390
|
human
|
As the title says, I've recently fallen in with a group of people who love to drink and party together. By that I mean that more or less the same group of people get together and have drinks at one of their houses. Every weekend they're all so excited to get together for drinks and all I can think of is all the other more productive enjoyable things I can be doing. I like spending time them, but once it hits 2am I'd MUCH rather be in bed. I don't understand how they can enjoy partying together and doing the same thing each weekend so much, but I would really like to be able to enjoy doing this more like normal people. Can someone please help change my view, if not provide me with some idea as to why this is such an enjoyable activity? I'm at a total loss here. Throwaway just because some of these friends know my Reddit account username. Edit: Productive really wasn't the word I was looking for here. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, community-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links, edit note) and colloquial phrasing typical of human forum posts. Second, there are small inconsistencies, typos ('spending time them'), and conversational redundancies that suggest spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional nuance, personal details, and meta-comments ('Edit: Productive really wasn't the word') reflect lived experience and iterative human interaction. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, community-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links, edit note) and conversational tone typical of human forum posts. Second, there are small typos, inconsistent spacing, and colloquial phrasings ('I like spending time them') suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional nuance, personal details (throwaway, Reddit username), and meta-comments align with real-user interaction patterns on sites like Reddit. For these reasons I conclude HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, community-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links, edit note) and conversational tone typical of human forum posts. Second, there are small typos, colloquial phrasings ('throwaway', 'Productive really wasn't the word') and uneven grammar suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional nuance, personal details (specific times, social context) and meta-comments align with genuine human interaction. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, community-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links, edit note) consistent with a copied Reddit post, which is typical of human forum content. Second, it shows casual typos, inconsistent spacing, emotive emphasis (e.g., MUCH), and conversational repetition that AI rarely reproduce so naturally. Moreover, the emotional nuance, personal details, and meta-comments ('Edit: Productive really wasn't the word') indicate genuine human interaction rather than generated text. For these reasons I conclude HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: As the title says, I've recently fallen in with a group of people who love to drink and party together. By that I mean that more or less the same group of people get together and have drinks at one of their houses. Every weekend they're all so excited to get together for drinks and all I can think of is all the other more productive enjoyable things I can be doing. I like spending time them, but once it hits 2am I'd MUCH rather be in bed. I don't understand how they can enjoy partying together and doing the same thing each weekend so much, but I would really like to be able to enjoy doing this more like normal people. Can someone please help change my view, if not provide me with some idea as to why this is such an enjoyable activity? I'm at a total loss here. Throwaway just because some of these friends know my Reddit account username. Edit: Productive really wasn't the word I was looking for here. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 466
|
human-1756
|
human
|
1. The presenter overdoes the "you have to stop this right now" way of using the buzzer even when it's not necessary. 2. She laughs too much at the jokes it almost feels fake. 3. 3 ads in a 30-minute show compared to 1 in the original British show, one of which is just before the credits. 4. Having guest stars and leaving out the contestants just feels lame. 5. For some reason it feels like they know what's coming up, they go directly where they're supposed to go even before the presenter tells them to. 6. She mentions the points too often and forgets to assign points after contests even though they don't matter. 7. No direct interaction with the audience which means what's happening may have been prepared. That's all I can think of for now.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the text uses casual, idiosyncratic phrasing ('That's all I can think of for now') and small inconsistencies (double space, uneven bullet depth) typical of quick human writing. Second, it shows personal subjective judgments and specific cultural reference (British show) with conversational tone rather than polished, evenly balanced exposition common in AI outputs. Moreover, there are minor stylistic slips and colloquialisms suggesting spontaneous composition by a person. HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the text uses casual, conversational phrasing and personal markers (e.g., 'That's all I can think of for now') typical of human forum posts. Second, it shows small inconsistencies and idiosyncratic choices ('3 ads in a 30-minute show' with a missing hyphen) suggesting spontaneous typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it includes subjective sensory details and brief digressions common in human commentary instead of the more uniform, exhaustive patterns AI often generates. Based on these cues, I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the text uses casual, conversational phrasing and personal markers ('That's all I can think of for now') typical of human forum posts. Second, there are small inconsistencies and colloquial slips (repeated '3', odd comma placement) suggesting spontaneous typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it shows subjective, specific observations about TV culture instead of generic, evenly balanced statements common in AI-generated text. Based on these cues, I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the text uses casual, first-person phrasing ('That's all I can think of for now') and includes concrete personal observations (laughs, forgetting to assign points) suggesting lived viewing rather than generic AI output. Second, there are small stylistic inconsistencies and colloquialisms ('even when it's not necessary', 'just before the credits') typical of spontaneous human writing. Moreover, the numbered, conversational list and lack of overly polished transitions point to quick human composition instead of AI's more uniform, edited style. Based on these cues, I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: 1. The presenter overdoes the \"you have to stop this right now\" way of using the buzzer even when it's not necessary. 2. She laughs too much at the jokes it almost feels fake. 3. 3 ads in a 30-minute show compared to 1 in the original British show, one of which is just before the credits. 4. Having guest stars and leaving out the contestants just feels lame. 5. For some reason it feels like they know what's coming up, they go directly where they're supposed to go even before the presenter tells them to. 6. She mentions the points too often and forgets to assign points after contests even though they don't matter. 7. No direct interaction with the audience which means what's happening may have been prepared. That's all I can think of for now.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 328
|
human-57
|
human
|
I have not had an easy life. My parents were abusive, and as a result I developed PTSD. Recently the psych has started suggesting bipolar, and it fits. I've struggled with eating disorders, anxiety, and self harm. I've lost everyone I cared about, including my grandparents (who were more parents to me than my regular parents), my best friend of six years, and my child. I have only sort-of friends, no deep friendships. No one would miss me when I'm gone. I am quite intelligent. I say this as a fact, not a brag. I'm unattractive, clumsy, and socially awkward, and also have a remarkably high IQjust the facts. Despite this, I doubt I will ever be a productive member of society because of my mental health issues. In addition to a difficult start, I also have genetics stacked against me (every single relative known to meover 50 peoplehas at least one mental illness). So if no one cares, I don't enjoy life, and I'm unlikely to benefit society much... I would say I'm justified in no longer living. This has some unfortunate implications. CMV? I'm not interested in being told "don't do it," I'm interested in some logical reason why I shouldn't.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a highly personal, emotionally nuanced voice with specific lived details (PTSD, eating disorders, grandparents) and community-specific shorthand ('CMV') that match genuine Reddit submissions. Second, there are typographic idiosyncrasies and uneven spacing ('IQjust the facts', '50 peoplehas') plus colloquial contractions ('I've') which are typical of human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the moral ambiguity and admission of wanting logical reasons reflect authentic human emotional complexity and social context. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows highly specific personal details, emotional nuance, and forum-specific markers ('CMV', 'unattractive') that match genuine human online behavior. Second, there are small typographic inconsistencies and colloquial phrasings ('I've lost everyone... including my grandparents...') which are typical of spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the raw, conflicted voice and admission of seeking a logical reason reflect authentic human introspection rather than generated neutrality. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post displays highly specific personal details, emotional nuance, and forum-specific markers ('CMV', 'unattractive') consistent with a real Reddit user's submission. Second, there are small typographic idiosyncrasies and uneven phrasing ('IQjust the facts', '50 peoplehas') typical of human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the raw, conflicted voice and invitation for reasoned opposition feel authentic and context-driven, not generic or formulaic. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post displays highly specific personal details, emotional rawness, and forum-specific markers ('CMV', 'unattractive') consistent with a genuine Reddit submission. Second, there are typographic idiosyncrasies and uneven spacing ('IQjust the facts'), casual phrasing, and moral ambiguity that AI rarely produce so naturally. Moreover, the narrative's inconsistent structure and intimate self-reflection suggest lived experience rather than generated text; therefore HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I have not had an easy life. My parents were abusive, and as a result I developed PTSD. Recently the psych has started suggesting bipolar, and it fits. I've struggled with eating disorders, anxiety, and self harm. I've lost everyone I cared about, including my grandparents (who were more parents to me than my regular parents), my best friend of six years, and my child. I have only sort-of friends, no deep friendships. No one would miss me when I'm gone. I am quite intelligent. I say this as a fact, not a brag. I'm unattractive, clumsy, and socially awkward, and also have a remarkably high IQjust the facts. Despite this, I doubt I will ever be a productive member of society because of my mental health issues. In addition to a difficult start, I also have genetics stacked against me (every single relative known to meover 50 peoplehas at least one mental illness). So if no one cares, I don't enjoy life, and I'm unlikely to benefit society much... I would say I'm justified in no longer living. This has some unfortunate implications. CMV? I'm not interested in being told \"don't do it,\" I'm interested in some logical reason why I shouldn't.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 410
|
human-1831
|
human
|
First off I'll admit that I'm biased by Western liberal media - especially the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Charlie Brooker and numerous documentaries from the liberal side of the spectrum, particularly Adam Curtis, in his "Power of Nightmares"; and numerous documentaries on inequality and the global economy. I've come to believe that the far-right embodies everything that is disgusting in human beings. Their politics have never led to anything but misery and war. People who buy into their ideology either have deeply vested interests or are insanely gullible. Far right ideologies pander to the basest of human emotions, and this is something that should always be kept in check. A list of some of the characteristics of the far right tends to embrace: celebrating social inequality, bigotry, racism, selfish individualism, materialism, conspicuous consumerism, religious fundamentalism, anti-intellectualism, pride, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, greed, social conservatism, patriarchy, social hierarchy, persecution complexes, victim complexes, scapegoating minorities, warmongering, pseudo-science, superstition and deeply regressive religious beliefs. In my opinion, none of these traits in humans should be encouraged, and we should strive towards a fair and free society. Right wing groups are almost always the people stopping us from getting closer to utopia. Ultimately, I believe the various flavors of the far-right: extremist religious conservatives like Islamists, jesus camp sorts and neo-conservatives in the GOP are very similar and equally dangerous. I believe this kind of thinking is a sickness that needs to be purged. It's impractical to put people who adhere to this ideology in death camps, and neither would that solve anything. But I think the world should make a concerted effort to completely stamp out this sort of thinking. Children should be taught how dangerous these ideologies are. Far-right groups should not have any freedom of speech whatsoever. I think far-left ideologies have been for the most part eliminated from the world outside of very fringe areas, and since communism has failed for the most part it rarely gets political prominence. But the far right still exists, and wields considerable power. After the Great Depression of the early 20th century, far-right politics left devastation in its wake. After the economic woes of the 2008 financial crisis and as a counter to Islamism emanating from the middle east (which is also a far right idelogy), we are seeing the far-right emerge in parts of Europe, and even America. We are heading towards another catastrophe. We simply aren't learning from history. Edit: I'm not talking about American politics exclusively, but rather the global problem of extremist ideologies and the far-right in particular. By "far right" i DO NOT mean republicans in general or anyone that's just slightly right of center. I'm talking about right-wing radicals, the fringes. They are a vocal minority but nevertheless wield considerable power and have done a lot of real damage to the world. And here's a link to the documentary "Power of Nightmares" by Adam Curtis, that I'm basing some of the stuff here on:
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a conversational, self-correcting forum-style voice with explicit 'Edit:' and personal asides that are typical of human online posts. Second, it contains idiosyncratic choices—typos ('i' for lowercase i'), inconsistent capitalization, repetition, and emotionally nuanced bias—that AI usually smooths out. Moreover, the inclusion of specific cultural references, uneven organization, and an invitation to dialogue suggest lived experience and iterative human behavior. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a conversational, self-referential tone with personal admissions ('First off...'), an 'Edit:' note, and a signed recommendation to read a specific document, patterns common in human forum posts. Second, there are small inconsistencies, colloquial emphases (e.g., 'i DO NOT...') and a trailing unfinished link that suggest organic human drafting rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the writing contains nuanced hedging, shifting stance, and cultural references presented casually, which align with human authorship more than typical AI-generated text. For these reasons I judge the passage to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a conversational, forum-style voice with personal admissions ('First off...'), an 'Edit:' note, and a direct invitation to respond, patterns common in human online posts. Second, there are small inconsistencies, colloquial emphases (e.g., 'i DO NOT...') and a pasted link prompt suggesting iterative human interaction rather than a single-pass AI generation. Moreover, the writing contains uneven phrasing, repetition, and emotionally driven bias that align with human spontaneity instead of typical AI polish. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a highly personal, conversational Reddit-style voice with explicit 'Edit:' and first-person admissions that match human forum behavior. Second, it contains idiosyncratic emphases (all-caps, repeated words, casual typos like 'i' for an em dash) suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven organization, emotional bias, and specific cultural references point to a single human author expressing opinions rather than a generic AI summary. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: First off I'll admit that I'm biased by Western liberal media - especially the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, Charlie Brooker and numerous documentaries from the liberal side of the spectrum, particularly Adam Curtis, in his \"Power of Nightmares\"; and numerous documentaries on inequality and the global economy. I've come to believe that the far-right embodies everything that is disgusting in human beings. Their politics have never led to anything but misery and war. People who buy into their ideology either have deeply vested interests or are insanely gullible. Far right ideologies pander to the basest of human emotions, and this is something that should always be kept in check. A list of some of the characteristics of the far right tends to embrace: celebrating social inequality, bigotry, racism, selfish individualism, materialism, conspicuous consumerism, religious fundamentalism, anti-intellectualism, pride, prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, greed, social conservatism, patriarchy, social hierarchy, persecution complexes, victim complexes, scapegoating minorities, warmongering, pseudo-science, superstition and deeply regressive religious beliefs. In my opinion, none of these traits in humans should be encouraged, and we should strive towards a fair and free society. Right wing groups are almost always the people stopping us from getting closer to utopia. Ultimately, I believe the various flavors of the far-right: extremist religious conservatives like Islamists, jesus camp sorts and neo-conservatives in the GOP are very similar and equally dangerous. I believe this kind of thinking is a sickness that needs to be purged. It's impractical to put people who adhere to this ideology in death camps, and neither would that solve anything. But I think the world should make a concerted effort to completely stamp out this sort of thinking. Children should be taught how dangerous these ideologies are. Far-right groups should not have any freedom of speech whatsoever. I think far-left ideologies have been for the most part eliminated from the world outside of very fringe areas, and since communism has failed for the most part it rarely gets political prominence. But the far right still exists, and wields considerable power. After the Great Depression of the early 20th century, far-right politics left devastation in its wake. After the economic woes of the 2008 financial crisis and as a counter to Islamism emanating from the middle east (which is also a far right idelogy), we are seeing the far-right emerge in parts of Europe, and even America. We are heading towards another catastrophe. We simply aren't learning from history. Edit: I'm not talking about American politics exclusively, but rather the global problem of extremist ideologies and the far-right in particular. By \"far right\" i DO NOT mean republicans in general or anyone that's just slightly right of center. I'm talking about right-wing radicals, the fringes. They are a vocal minority but nevertheless wield considerable power and have done a lot of real damage to the world. And here's a link to the documentary \"Power of Nightmares\" by Adam Curtis, that I'm basing some of the stuff here on:",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 788
|
human-436
|
human
|
When I debate whether or not humans have free will, someone often brings up blame. "If there is no free will, we can't hold anyone accountable for their actions." I believe that the justice system should not be designed to punish or to exact revenge. We can still impose penalties on criminals for two separate purposes. One, to modify a persons behavior in the future (hence the word "corrections" in the name of most prisons). And two, for especially serious crimes, to remove a person from society for an extended period of time or indefinitely. This should not be a debate about free will, not that I wouldn't love to, but that horse has been slaughtered and I'm not changing my view on that issue. To me, most people have difficulty accepting free will as an illusion because they very strongly believe people need to be fundamentally responsible for their actions. Change my view.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a conversational, forum-style voice with personal markers ('When I debate...') and direct appeals ('Change my view'), which matches human online posting patterns. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasings, small stylistic inconsistencies, and emotional hedging ('not that I wouldn't love to') that AI rarely produce so naturally. Moreover, the argument contains nuanced, context-aware references (justice system, criminal penalties, modifying behavior) suggesting lived perspective rather than generic generated text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a conversational, forum-style voice with personal markers ('When I debate...') and direct appeals ('Change my view'), which matches human online posting patterns. Second, it shows small stylistic inconsistencies, colloquial phrasings ('the horse has been slaughtered') and minor grammatical slips ('a persons behavior') more typical of spontaneous human typing than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is idiosyncratic and emotionally grounded rather than overly generic or formulaic, suggesting a human author. HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a conversational, forum-style voice with personal appeals ('Change my view') and colloquial contractions, which is typical of human online posts. Second, it shows small stylistic inconsistencies and idiosyncratic phrasings ('a persons behavior', 'not that horse has been slaughtered') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it presents a specific, emotionally grounded stance and rhetorical engagement rather than generic balanced exposition common in AI-generated text. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses a conversational, forum-style voice with personal appeals ('Change my view') and colloquial phrasings ('that horse has been slaughtered'), suggesting spontaneous human posting. Second, it shows small stylistic inconsistencies and emotional engagement rather than polished, evenly balanced exposition common in AI outputs. Moreover, the argument relies on personal perspective, rhetorical provocation, and uneven organization in ways typical of human online replies. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: When I debate whether or not humans have free will, someone often brings up blame. \"If there is no free will, we can't hold anyone accountable for their actions.\" I believe that the justice system should not be designed to punish or to exact revenge. We can still impose penalties on criminals for two separate purposes. One, to modify a persons behavior in the future (hence the word \"corrections\" in the name of most prisons). And two, for especially serious crimes, to remove a person from society for an extended period of time or indefinitely. This should not be a debate about free will, not that I wouldn't love to, but that horse has been slaughtered and I'm not changing my view on that issue. To me, most people have difficulty accepting free will as an illusion because they very strongly believe people need to be fundamentally responsible for their actions. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 330
|
human-1254
|
human
|
My fiancee tells me that she has need to make people happy. The problem is that it's detrimental to her health, and I keep trying to tell her that. What I don't understand is that how is it possible for people to feel this innate urge to help people when it causes them to feel worse about themselves? I first started wondering this after I read Ayn Rand's Anthem in English class and we started talking about philosophy much more. One, that I can't remember the name of, is where it's okay to be selfish, because you have to look out for yourself before you can look out for anyone else. A friend and I were hanging out, and he said that he may have to go to someone else's house to help her. She and her boyfriend of 2 and a half years had just broken up, and he told her "If you ever need anything, I'll be there." He's a flirt, but I've been other people like this too. They're selfishly selfless, rather than selfishly selfless. How can people chose to be selfishly selfless? Why do people want to help others at the detriment of themselves? Is there a different way of looking at this? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a personal anecdote with idiosyncratic phrasing ('My fiancee') typical of human online posts. Second, it shows uneven grammar, repetition, and emotional nuance ('I keep trying to tell her that') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the mixed registers—personal confession, philosophical reflection, and moderator boilerplate—match real-user forum behavior. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a personal anecdote with emotional nuance that match human online posting. Second, it shows idiosyncratic phrasing, repetition ('selfishly selfless'), and a minor grammatical slip ('that she has need' instead of 'that she needs') suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the mixed registers — personal confession, philosophical reflection, and moderator boilerplate — indicate copy-paste from a real discussion thread. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a personal, anecdotal voice consistent with human online posting. Second, it contains idiosyncratic phrasings, minor grammatical slips ('that she has need to make people happy'), and conversational repetition that AI rarely produce so naturally. Moreover, the emotional nuance, uneven structure, and contextual references (Ayn Rand's Anthem, 'of 2 and a half years') point to lived experience rather than generated text. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly contextual, forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, personal anecdote) and casual phrasing consistent with human online posts. Second, it shows idiosyncratic errors and stylistic inconsistencies (typos, tense shifts, repetition) typical of spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional, personal tone and uneven structure point to a real user composing informally. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: My fiancee tells me that she has need to make people happy. The problem is that it's detrimental to her health, and I keep trying to tell her that. What I don't understand is that how is it possible for people to feel this innate urge to help people when it causes them to feel worse about themselves? I first started wondering this after I read Ayn Rand's Anthem in English class and we started talking about philosophy much more. One, that I can't remember the name of, is where it's okay to be selfish, because you have to look out for yourself before you can look out for anyone else. A friend and I were hanging out, and he said that he may have to go to someone else's house to help her. She and her boyfriend of 2 and a half years had just broken up, and he told her \"If you ever need anything, I'll be there.\" He's a flirt, but I've been other people like this too. They're selfishly selfless, rather than selfishly selfless. How can people chose to be selfishly selfless? Why do people want to help others at the detriment of themselves? Is there a different way of looking at this? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 515
|
human-943
|
human
|
I'm in no way against the ideas of wanting to explore the world, find out how things work, discover more about ourselves and better our own lives through technology. Nevertheless, I feel that placing so much trust in the idea that all of our questions can be answered and 'proven' (compared to being content with leaving some questions unanswered in the past) is actually more damaging to our society than living without these answers, both from a social standpoint (that we might all become entitled, arrogant members of society) and also from a mentalpsychological standpoint (that we lose the ability to question ourselves, be 'wrong' or place value in anything that we can't see or touch). If I ever have kids, I don't want them to grow up in a world that thinks it has all of the answers and doesn't challenge them to reach their own conclusions. tl;dr I worry that 'science' is becoming the new religion. tl;dr 2 I learned a term scientism] ' that more accurately describes the kind of pop-science to which I'm referring. Thanks ucaw81! Thanks for all the comments! I may not reply to any more but I will read them all. Good talk gang!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers ('tl;dr', 'ucaw81') and casual, idiosyncratic phrasings typical of human online posts. Second, there are typographic errors and inconsistent spacing ('mentalpsychological'), plus personal asides and emotive language ('I may not reply... Good talk gang!'), suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument shows uneven organization and rhetorical flourishes common in human conversational writing. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains forum-specific markers ('tl;dr', 'ucaw81') and casual conversational cues that match human online posting. Second, there are typographic slips and inconsistent spacing ('mentalpsychological'), plus personal asides and emotive language suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure and local coherence of the comment thread are typical of human-authored posts. Therefore my decision is HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows highly conversational, forum-style traits — explicit mentions of Reddit handles (ucaw81), 'Good talk gang!', and repeated 'tl;dr' markers consistent with human online posts. Second, there are typographic idiosyncrasies and casual errors (e.g., 'mentalpsychological' run together, mismatched bracket/quote) typical of quick human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the text contains personal asides, emotional nuance, and uneven structure that AIs less often produce naturally. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage contains highly idiosyncratic forum-style markers (tl;dr, ucalw81, thanks, read replies) and casual typos/spacing issues that are typical of human posts. Second, there is a mix of personal voice, emotional nuance, and uneven editing (bracketed note, missing space after a period) suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, AI-generated text usually shows more consistent grammar and fewer localized copy-paste artifacts unless intentionally simulated, whereas this text feels naturally found-and-edited by a person. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I'm in no way against the ideas of wanting to explore the world, find out how things work, discover more about ourselves and better our own lives through technology. Nevertheless, I feel that placing so much trust in the idea that all of our questions can be answered and 'proven' (compared to being content with leaving some questions unanswered in the past) is actually more damaging to our society than living without these answers, both from a social standpoint (that we might all become entitled, arrogant members of society) and also from a mentalpsychological standpoint (that we lose the ability to question ourselves, be 'wrong' or place value in anything that we can't see or touch). If I ever have kids, I don't want them to grow up in a world that thinks it has all of the answers and doesn't challenge them to reach their own conclusions. tl;dr I worry that 'science' is becoming the new religion. tl;dr 2 I learned a term scientism] ' that more accurately describes the kind of pop-science to which I'm referring. Thanks ucaw81! Thanks for all the comments! I may not reply to any more but I will read them all. Good talk gang!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 399
|
human-2303
|
human
|
Let me make my view clear here. I believe that things like feminism and men's rights comeswill come in waves. First wave feminism was basically "We really have no rights, let's change that." Second wave feminism is "Hey, we have a lot more than we had, but there are still some pretty big, obvious inequalities that need to be changed." Third wave become where the nitpicking starts over things that probably don't matter in the long run. I have not actually looked at MRM to see where they would be considered at. I used to use Reddit's MRA sub for that, but I felt that sub was not a useful hub of discussion. So I do admit I am ignorant as to where the MRM would be on that scale. My overall feeling is that have the name stand for a certain sex equality is good at first, but at a certain point, the only way to go is to change to something means equality. A sex based name is something I don't believe can stand for equality once wave one and two are done. For the record, I see legit feminist issues that would qualify as wave 2 kind of stuff, but I see more and more of the nit picking going on, slowly coming up. I guess my main belief is that I believe that these two things, feminism and MRM, are good until a point. Then, they need to change, they need to have that rebranding with something that isn't named based off gender, because once the big issues are out of the way, you should move onto equality for everyone, not just for that one group (I do believe that there are feminists and MRA that fight for true equality for all, but my point still stands.) Sorry if the writing is weird, I can articulate my ideas well in my head, but they come out poop in written language and in text.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly conversational, idiosyncratic voice with typos, colloquialisms, and self-deprecating asides (e.g., 'Sorry if the writing is weird') typical of human forum posts. Second, it contains personal anecdotes, inconsistent punctuation/capitalization ('comeswill', 'Second wave... become'), and hedging/uncertainty about facts, suggesting spontaneous human composition rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, mild repetition, and emotional register align with human stream-of-consciousness writing more than with most current AI generations. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly conversational, forum-style voice with personal anecdotes, hedging, and explicit self-reflection that matches human online posts. Second, it contains typographical errors and colloquialisms ('comeswill', 'poop') plus inconsistent grammar/structure suggesting spontaneous typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it references specific community details (Reddit's MRA sub) and expresses nuanced uncertainty in a way typical of human users. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly conversational, forum-style voice with personal anecdotes, hedging, and explicit apology ('Sorry if the writing is weird'), traits common in human online posts. Second, it contains typographical errors and uneven grammar ('comeswill', 'in text') suggesting casual human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it includes specific cultural references and inconsistent argumentation ('Reddit's MRA sub') indicating lived experience and spontaneous thought. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly conversational, forum-style voice with personal anecdotes, hedging, and explicit apology ('Sorry if the writing is weird'), traits common in human posts. Second, it contains typographical errors and uneven grammar ('comeswill', 'in text') suggesting casual human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, it includes context-specific references (Reddit's MRA sub, MRM) and inconsistent structure and tone indicating spontaneous human composition. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Let me make my view clear here. I believe that things like feminism and men's rights comeswill come in waves. First wave feminism was basically \"We really have no rights, let's change that.\" Second wave feminism is \"Hey, we have a lot more than we had, but there are still some pretty big, obvious inequalities that need to be changed.\" Third wave become where the nitpicking starts over things that probably don't matter in the long run. I have not actually looked at MRM to see where they would be considered at. I used to use Reddit's MRA sub for that, but I felt that sub was not a useful hub of discussion. So I do admit I am ignorant as to where the MRM would be on that scale. My overall feeling is that have the name stand for a certain sex equality is good at first, but at a certain point, the only way to go is to change to something means equality. A sex based name is something I don't believe can stand for equality once wave one and two are done. For the record, I see legit feminist issues that would qualify as wave 2 kind of stuff, but I see more and more of the nit picking going on, slowly coming up. I guess my main belief is that I believe that these two things, feminism and MRM, are good until a point. Then, they need to change, they need to have that rebranding with something that isn't named based off gender, because once the big issues are out of the way, you should move onto equality for everyone, not just for that one group (I do believe that there are feminists and MRA that fight for true equality for all, but my point still stands.) Sorry if the writing is weird, I can articulate my ideas well in my head, but they come out poop in written language and in text.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 531
|
human-889
|
human
|
Some prefaces (sad that I have to do this lest the pitchfork mob burn me at the stake): Animal abuse does get me riled up. The whole fiasco of yesterday with the abused poodle puppy on the dancing puppy gif (turned out to be a different dog) is what got me thinking about this. I watched the whole 15 minute video of the dog getting abused. It was hard, man. You could really feel with that dog. Scared shitless. Didn't know what his owner wanted him to do or why he was getting yelled at and abused. Hell, I couldn't even quite tell what the owner wanted. The guy's clearly got some cruel tendencies, no doubt. I was then linked to the video, which I have seen before, of the dogs getting skinned alive in...Korea, was it? That's the hardest one for me to watch. The thought of being skinned alive freaks me the fuck out. Those animals must be in a lot of pain and really scared. They probably don't know they're dying, though, so that's one thing they don't have to deal with. They probably just think they're about to be eaten by a "predator," kinda like how a gazelle would feel once caught by a cheetah. I get angry watching these things, too. I think to myself, "How could someone, not counting pure psychopaths, do this and not feel anything? Have they no empathy?." I want to punch those guys; make them feel what it's like to be abused. I want to help the animals, but obviously I can't. To my point: even through all of my anger, I still can't rationally justify saying that they "shouldn't" abuse animals. It might be the [isought] problem in moral philosophy. Yes, it pisses me off, and I'm personally not going to be hurting any animals anytime soon, and I wish others wouldn't do it, either...but how can I rationally go from that to then saying that other people shouldn't because it's "wrong"? If Joe down the street wants to kick puppies all day, I will feel sorry for the puppies and try to rescue them from his kickings, but how can I say it's "wrong"? It's just my preferences against his. Some people think that killing anything is wrong, even for food. I most certainly wouldn't like it if they tried to impose their ideas onto my lifestyle, so why should I get to do it to Joe's? A lot of people try to say things like, "Well, it's okay if you need it for food, but that's it." Who gets to say that that's the line? Or some people make it about suffering, "It can feel pain.." Okay, how does pain transfer into moral terms? And what really gets me is when people say, "Oh man, that puppy abuse video got to me more than any human deathabuse video that I've ever seen!," and I'm like, "WTF?! Why?," and they say, "Because the puppy is innocent. It can't defend itself. It doesn't know any better.." Who says THAT'S the line, either? Just because something has the capability of possibly defending itself (which HUMAN babies certainly don't. Nor do adults humans who are tied up with guns pointed at their heads), doesn't make it less "bad" to harm it. Anyway, this is a tangent at this point. Bottom line: Why do my preferences about how to treat other life forms get to be imposed on Joe-the-puppy-kicker's preferences? Unless there is an objective moral truth on this issue (which I would love to see proof for!) then how can it be rationally supposed that animal abuse is just inherently "bad"?
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly idiosyncratic, emotionally charged voice with colloquialisms, profanity, digressions, and self-corrections that read like spontaneous human writing. Second, it contains small inconsistencies, bracketed placeholders ('[isught]'), inconsistent capitalization, and rhetorical questions that suggest organic drafting rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, personal anecdotes, and moral wrestling reflect lived perspective and personality typical of human authors. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly idiosyncratic, emotionally raw voice with colloquialisms, profanity, and inconsistent punctuation/parentheses that are typical of spontaneous human writing. Second, it contains specific personal details, rhetorical questions, and tentative philosophical markers (e.g., 'The [isought] problem') suggesting lived experience rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, self-corrections, and emotional fluctuations indicate human spontaneity instead of the more uniform, edited patterns common to AI generations. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly idiosyncratic, emotionally raw voice with colloquialisms, profanity, digressions, and self-corrections that read like spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Second, there are small inconsistencies, bracketed placeholder tokens ('[isught]'), uneven punctuation, and personal asides ('sad that I have to do this lest the pitchfork mob burn me...') suggesting human typing habits and iterative revision. Moreover, the nuanced moral uncertainty, rhetorical questions, and culturally specific references (poodle gif, Korea) indicate lived experience and conversational intent common in human posts. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a highly idiosyncratic, emotionally raw, and conversational voice with slang, profanity, and self-deprecating asides that read like spontaneous human writing. Second, it contains uneven grammar, personal tangents, bracketed placeholder 'isought', and rhetorical questions suggesting iterative human composition rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional inconsistency, specific mundane details (15 minute video, poodle puppy) and culturally specific references (Korea, Joe-the-puppy-kicker) point to lived experience and personality. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Some prefaces (sad that I have to do this lest the pitchfork mob burn me at the stake): Animal abuse does get me riled up. The whole fiasco of yesterday with the abused poodle puppy on the dancing puppy gif (turned out to be a different dog) is what got me thinking about this. I watched the whole 15 minute video of the dog getting abused. It was hard, man. You could really feel with that dog. Scared shitless. Didn't know what his owner wanted him to do or why he was getting yelled at and abused. Hell, I couldn't even quite tell what the owner wanted. The guy's clearly got some cruel tendencies, no doubt. I was then linked to the video, which I have seen before, of the dogs getting skinned alive in...Korea, was it? That's the hardest one for me to watch. The thought of being skinned alive freaks me the fuck out. Those animals must be in a lot of pain and really scared. They probably don't know they're dying, though, so that's one thing they don't have to deal with. They probably just think they're about to be eaten by a \"predator,\" kinda like how a gazelle would feel once caught by a cheetah. I get angry watching these things, too. I think to myself, \"How could someone, not counting pure psychopaths, do this and not feel anything? Have they no empathy?.\" I want to punch those guys; make them feel what it's like to be abused. I want to help the animals, but obviously I can't. To my point: even through all of my anger, I still can't rationally justify saying that they \"shouldn't\" abuse animals. It might be the [isought] problem in moral philosophy. Yes, it pisses me off, and I'm personally not going to be hurting any animals anytime soon, and I wish others wouldn't do it, either...but how can I rationally go from that to then saying that other people shouldn't because it's \"wrong\"? If Joe down the street wants to kick puppies all day, I will feel sorry for the puppies and try to rescue them from his kickings, but how can I say it's \"wrong\"? It's just my preferences against his. Some people think that killing anything is wrong, even for food. I most certainly wouldn't like it if they tried to impose their ideas onto my lifestyle, so why should I get to do it to Joe's? A lot of people try to say things like, \"Well, it's okay if you need it for food, but that's it.\" Who gets to say that that's the line? Or some people make it about suffering, \"It can feel pain..\" Okay, how does pain transfer into moral terms? And what really gets me is when people say, \"Oh man, that puppy abuse video got to me more than any human deathabuse video that I've ever seen!,\" and I'm like, \"WTF?! Why?,\" and they say, \"Because the puppy is innocent. It can't defend itself. It doesn't know any better..\" Who says THAT'S the line, either? Just because something has the capability of possibly defending itself (which HUMAN babies certainly don't. Nor do adults humans who are tied up with guns pointed at their heads), doesn't make it less \"bad\" to harm it. Anyway, this is a tangent at this point. Bottom line: Why do my preferences about how to treat other life forms get to be imposed on Joe-the-puppy-kicker's preferences? Unless there is an objective moral truth on this issue (which I would love to see proof for!) then how can it be rationally supposed that animal abuse is just inherently \"bad\"?",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 938
|
human-1410
|
human
|
Though obviously there was a famine with the potatoes that was only part of the problem. The British oppression of the Irish people though the corn laws (not allowing wheat and other staple food items from other countries to help the Irish) and poorly planned relief efforts are all the British's fault. They basically refused to help a nation they oppressed and I believe that it was a genocide. CMV
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses forum-specific shorthand ('CMV') and a personal, emotionally charged tone common in human online discussions. Second, it shows colloquial phrasings and minor inconsistencies (e.g., 'British's' and repeated 'though') suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is opinionated, unevenly supported, and includes conversational fillers like 'I believe', aligning with human-authored posts. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses forum-specific shorthand ('CMV') and a personal, emotionally charged tone common in human online posts. Second, it shows colloquial phrasings ('all the British's fault'), inconsistent punctuation/spacing, and repetition that suggest spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is opinionated and unevenly supported instead of presenting balanced, neutral exposition typical of many AI generations. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses forum-specific shorthand ('CMV') and a personal, emotionally charged tone common in human online posts. Second, it shows colloquial phrasings ('all the British's fault'), inconsistent punctuation/spacing, and repetition that suggest spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is opinionated and unevenly supported instead of presenting balanced, neutral exposition typical of many AI generations. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses forum-specific shorthand ('CMV') and a personal, emotionally charged tone common in human online posts. Second, it shows colloquial phrasings ('all the British's fault'), inconsistent punctuation/spacing, and repetition suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argument is opinionated and unevenly structured in a way typical of human conversational writing. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Though obviously there was a famine with the potatoes that was only part of the problem. The British oppression of the Irish people though the corn laws (not allowing wheat and other staple food items from other countries to help the Irish) and poorly planned relief efforts are all the British's fault. They basically refused to help a nation they oppressed and I believe that it was a genocide. CMV",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 227
|
human-765
|
human
|
Let me start off by saying that I think sampling and photography are neither cheating or unartistic. In fact, some of my favorite pieces of art either contain samples or are photos. Now, I often hear people say that sampling is cheating because the artist didn't make the sample but rather "stole" it and put it into their own work. Or you hear something along the lines that unless you play an instrument, it isn't real music (which extends to music beyond sampling, but let's just focus on sampling here). But photography has many similarities. Excluding certain outliers, a huge amount of photography fits into a few different categories: landscapes, still life, actually, [this site] does a pretty good job of summing up the different styles of photography. My point is that when a photographer takes a picture of say a landscape or a portrait, the photographer isn't building that landscape. They're not creating new wildlife to take pictures of for wild life photography. But rather, the art in photography, IMO, is the perspective and artistic eye that a photographer has. It's looking at those rolling hills and thinking of a unique andor beautiful way to capture them. It's a way of getting a side of a lion that perhaps many haven't noticed about it before. The same goes with sampling. Yes, maybe the sampler doesn't know how to play saxophone or keyboard. But they're able put this sound in a new perspective that brings out new things about it. From a simple 4 bar loop to super creative chopping. It is art to hear a piece of music and think of a new way to bring life to it. Take for instance this [Kendrick Lamar song] . Minimal chopping goes into that sample. There's a bit at the end of the loop, but not much. Now go listen to that Gil Scott Heron song from the beginning and tell me: would you have even noticed that little tid bit had you not listened to the Kendrick song beforehand? Perhaps you would have, but I argue that this is a relatively tiny part with a good chance of being overlooked. The producer of the Kendrick song had the artistic mind to hear that tiny bit and breathe and entire new life into it. Not to mention albums like DJ Shadow's Endtroducing or the Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique which uses such an unbelievable amount of sampling that to call it unartistic seems absurd to me. If you think photography is some how "more artistic" than a sample, then I assume the only photography that you like is simple pictures of abstract drawings that the photographer has made and just decided to recapture with a camera. Because I don't understand why capturing a photo of a sunrise over a mountain top is any more or less involved than chopping up a sample. Just because you didn't create the subject of the photo or the source sample does not mean you didn't create a new piece of art. Note: I'm not going to argue how the copyright and ownership should work here, although I think it's an interesting discussion when held against the backdrop of photography. I'm simply arguing about "artistic merit." Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows forum-specific markers (CMV header, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, context-aware tone typical of human online posts. Second, it contains idiosyncratic errors and informal choices (e.g., 'andor', casual phrasings, rhetorical questions) that AI rarely produce so naturally without explicit instruction. Moreover, the argumentation is personal, anecdotal, and unevenly polished in a way consistent with human authorship rather than a generative model's usually more uniform output. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows forum-specific markers (CMV header, moderator footnote, bracketed link placeholders) and a conversational, context-aware tone typical of human online posts. Second, it contains idiosyncratic errors and informal choices (e.g., 'andor', casual phrasings, uneven punctuation) that are more characteristic of spontaneous human typing than polished AI output. Moreover, the argumentative back-and-forth, rhetorical questions, and personal voice suggest lived experience and intent behind the text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows forum-specific markers (CMV header, moderator footnote, bracketed link placeholders) and a conversational, context-aware tone typical of human online posts. Second, it contains idiosyncratic errors and informal choices (e.g., 'andor', casual phrasings, uneven punctuation) suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argumentative back-and-forth, rhetorical questions, and personal voice align with human-authored commentary. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows forum-specific markers (CMV, moderator footnote, bracketed links) and a conversational, context-aware tone typical of human online posts. Second, it contains idiosyncratic errors and informal choices (e.g., 'andor', casual phrasings, uneven punctuation) suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the argumentative back-and-forth, personal voice, and culturally specific references align with human-authored Reddit content. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Let me start off by saying that I think sampling and photography are neither cheating or unartistic. In fact, some of my favorite pieces of art either contain samples or are photos. Now, I often hear people say that sampling is cheating because the artist didn't make the sample but rather \"stole\" it and put it into their own work. Or you hear something along the lines that unless you play an instrument, it isn't real music (which extends to music beyond sampling, but let's just focus on sampling here). But photography has many similarities. Excluding certain outliers, a huge amount of photography fits into a few different categories: landscapes, still life, actually, [this site] does a pretty good job of summing up the different styles of photography. My point is that when a photographer takes a picture of say a landscape or a portrait, the photographer isn't building that landscape. They're not creating new wildlife to take pictures of for wild life photography. But rather, the art in photography, IMO, is the perspective and artistic eye that a photographer has. It's looking at those rolling hills and thinking of a unique andor beautiful way to capture them. It's a way of getting a side of a lion that perhaps many haven't noticed about it before. The same goes with sampling. Yes, maybe the sampler doesn't know how to play saxophone or keyboard. But they're able put this sound in a new perspective that brings out new things about it. From a simple 4 bar loop to super creative chopping. It is art to hear a piece of music and think of a new way to bring life to it. Take for instance this [Kendrick Lamar song] . Minimal chopping goes into that sample. There's a bit at the end of the loop, but not much. Now go listen to that Gil Scott Heron song from the beginning and tell me: would you have even noticed that little tid bit had you not listened to the Kendrick song beforehand? Perhaps you would have, but I argue that this is a relatively tiny part with a good chance of being overlooked. The producer of the Kendrick song had the artistic mind to hear that tiny bit and breathe and entire new life into it. Not to mention albums like DJ Shadow's Endtroducing or the Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique which uses such an unbelievable amount of sampling that to call it unartistic seems absurd to me. If you think photography is some how \"more artistic\" than a sample, then I assume the only photography that you like is simple pictures of abstract drawings that the photographer has made and just decided to recapture with a camera. Because I don't understand why capturing a photo of a sunrise over a mountain top is any more or less involved than chopping up a sample. Just because you didn't create the subject of the photo or the source sample does not mean you didn't create a new piece of art. Note: I'm not going to argue how the copyright and ownership should work here, although I think it's an interesting discussion when held against the backdrop of photography. I'm simply arguing about \"artistic merit.\" Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 901
|
human-1228
|
human
|
To be clear, I don't think polygamy would be the right course of action for me. But I do believe that if both men and women have the right to marry as many or as few people as they want in a society that does not in any way provide economic incentives for marriage, then there is no problem with that, in my eyes. Can anybody change my view?
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses conversational, context-specific phrasing ('To be clear', 'Can anybody change my view') and shows personal nuance and uncertainty typical of human online dialogue. Second, it contains small stylistic idiosyncrasies (e.g., 'in a society that does not in any way provide economic incentives') rather than overly polished, generic exposition common in AI outputs. Moreover, it invites debate and personal perspective in a way characteristic of human interpersonal communication, so I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post uses conversational, context-specific phrasing ('To be clear...') and a direct interpersonal query ('Can anybody change my view?'), which matches human online discussion. Second, it shows personal hedging (I don't think...), moral nuance, and a balanced, tentative stance rather than overconfident AI-style generalizations. Moreover, the short length, colloquial contractions, and slight stylistic unevenness suggest spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Based on these cues, I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses conversational, context-specific phrasing ('To be clear...') and a direct interpersonal query ('Can anybody change my view?'), which is typical of human online posts. Second, it shows tentative, personal stance and nuance (don't think polygamy is right for me but believe under certain conditions) rather than presenting balanced, overly polished arguments common in AI outputs. Moreover, there are small stylistic idiosyncrasies—e.g., 'in my eyes' and casual comma usage—that suggest spontaneous human writing. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage uses balanced, generic phrasing ('To be clear...') and hedging ('I don't think...'), patterns common in AI-generated conversational replies. Second, it lacks personal detail or concrete examples and relies on abstract hypotheticals (both men and women having the right to marry), suggesting algorithmic generalization rather than lived experience. Moreover, the polished grammar, even pacing, and invitation 'Can anybody change my view?' match frequent AI output styles. For these reasons I judge it to be AI",
"verdict": "AI"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: To be clear, I don't think polygamy would be the right course of action for me. But I do believe that if both men and women have the right to marry as many or as few people as they want in a society that does not in any way provide economic incentives for marriage, then there is no problem with that, in my eyes. Can anybody change my view?",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 228
|
human-2126
|
human
|
The worst of words are used to offend because they work. If people looked at "Faggot" and "Nigger" as the unimaginative word choices that they are people would laugh at the people saying it as much as "poop head" I completely understand being offended when someone is spewing hate. I don't understand why people allow certain words, Sounds we make with our mouth just the right way, to have such power. My best friend is black. My roomate is gay. Most days I am pretty stupid. Call me retarded. Call me faggot. It won't hurt my feeling if your poking fun or even just being dumb. The only time speach should be offencive is when its goal is to hurt. Yes these days people use these words with perpose to hurt. Only because we let these words have power. Why can't we stop making them "bad" change their meaning. Take the word back. Instead of running and hiding from it?
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a raw, colloquial voice with typos, inconsistent punctuation, and idiosyncratic phrasings (e.g., 'Sounds we make with our mouth') typical of spontaneous human writing. Second, it contains personal anecdotes, emotional nuance, and uneven argumentation ('My best friend is black...') that AI rarely produce so casually without explicit instruction. Moreover, there are nonstandard constructions ('speach' for 'speech', 'perpose') and rhetorical slips suggesting human error rather than polished model output. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a raw, emotionally charged voice with colloquial phrasings, spelling/grammar slips (e.g., 'speach', 'perpose') and inconsistent punctuation that are typical of spontaneous human writing. Second, it contains personal anecdotes, contradictory self-reflection ('I completely understand...') and idiosyncratic stylistic choices ('Sounds we make with our mouth') suggesting individual personality rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, repetition and moralizing tone align with forum-style human posts rather than model-generated text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a raw, emotionally charged voice with colloquial slang, inconsistent punctuation, and typographical errors (e.g., 'speach') typical of spontaneous human writing. Second, it contains personal anecdotes, moral inconsistency, and rhetorical questions suggesting lived experience rather than polished AI output. Moreover, there are uneven transitions and idiosyncratic phrasings ('Sounds we make with our mouth') that AIs rarely produce so messily without explicit instruction. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the passage shows a raw, emotionally charged forum-style voice with typos, inconsistent punctuation, and colloquial phrasing (e.g., 'Sounds we make with our mouth') suggesting spontaneous human typing. Second, it contains personal anecdotes, moral inconsistency, and rhetorical questions that AI typically avoid or smooth out, indicating genuine human conversational intent. Moreover, there are small factual slips and uneven sentence boundaries common in copied human posts rather than polished AI output. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: The worst of words are used to offend because they work. If people looked at \"Faggot\" and \"Nigger\" as the unimaginative word choices that they are people would laugh at the people saying it as much as \"poop head\" I completely understand being offended when someone is spewing hate. I don't understand why people allow certain words, Sounds we make with our mouth just the right way, to have such power. My best friend is black. My roomate is gay. Most days I am pretty stupid. Call me retarded. Call me faggot. It won't hurt my feeling if your poking fun or even just being dumb. The only time speach should be offencive is when its goal is to hurt. Yes these days people use these words with perpose to hurt. Only because we let these words have power. Why can't we stop making them \"bad\" change their meaning. Take the word back. Instead of running and hiding from it?",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 351
|
human-533
|
human
|
I think the end game is to homogenize unique cultures and even out markets so big corporation will have more control. It feels like they treat national cultures as commodities, especially indigenous ones.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the message is brief, conversational, and uses first-person phrasing ('I think') and contractions, matching casual human forum posts. Second, it shows minor stylistic idiosyncrasies (e.g., 'so big corporation' without 'the') and a subjective, experience-driven tone rather than polished, neutral exposition common in AI outputs. Moreover, it lacks repetitive AI patterns or excessive hedging and includes a personal inference ('It feels like...'), suggesting genuine human expression. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the short, conversational tone and use of first-person phrasing ('I think') suggest a casual human voice rather than typical AI's often more formal or hedged output. Second, there are small stylistic idiosyncrasies — lack of excessive polishing, contractions, and colloquial word choices like 'homogenize' and 'indigenous' — which align with spontaneous human writing. Moreover, the message is specific and experience-based (saying 'It feels like...'), a common pattern in human forum posts. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the message is brief, conversational, and uses first-person phrasing ('I think') which is common in human online replies. Second, there are small stylistic idiosyncrasies—'big corporation' lacking a hyphen and casual sentence breaks—that suggest spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the tone is personal and opinionated with minimal elaboration, aligning with human conversational responses instead of typical AI's tendency to expand or hedge. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the text uses casual, first-person phrasing ('I think') and a conversational tone typical of human forum posts. Second, it shows minor stylistic slips (missing apostrophe in 'big corporation' and colloquial word choice) suggesting spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, its brevity and personal viewpoint align with quick human responses instead of AI's often more balanced, elaborated patterns. For these reasons I judge it to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: I think the end game is to homogenize unique cultures and even out markets so big corporation will have more control. It feels like they treat national cultures as commodities, especially indigenous ones.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 188
|
human-349
|
human
|
Hi CMV, let me present myself, I'm a 17 year old pianist, have been taking lessons since 10, and only till now I have wanted to have a serious music career as a composer more than a interpreter. But I feel that the fact that I have almost no money to spend on my musical education is making me think I may not be able to become a good composer. The only lessons I have ever taken, and still take, are piano lessons where I learn a bit of theory, but very slowly, and my teacher helps me at playing pieces I want or she wants, mostly classical, the last piece I played was Chopin's Etude op10 no3. I have seen many biographies of some composers and I see that most of them took classes at a very early age, something I didn't because my family has never feel interested in classical music, not till I wanted to take lessons for piano at 10. Most of them also took constant musical lessons through all their early life, all the education I have are my piano lessons, this is due to the fact that I don't have much money to spend on many lessons or a better teacher. I live in Mexico and the best musical conservatory (university) is in the capital, and I don't think I could afford to go there unless I have an scholarship which is very unlikely. Although theres one in my local city, but of course, not as good. All this leads me to believe that anyone who wants to become a good classical music composerinterpreter needs either a lot of money to pay all those high level teachers and lessons, or one needs to have a lot of talent and be a natural like Chopin did. And me as a simple guy who simply has a lot of enthusiasm and love for music will have quite a hard time becoming a decent composer. Please change My view, all this is making me think is that I can't have a future with the one thing I love. Any tips on my example will be appreciated as well.
|
NA
|
cmv
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a highly personal, colloquial forum voice with specific lived details (age, family finances, local conservatory, Chopin's Etude op10 no3) typical of human user posts. Second, it contains typographical errors, inconsistent punctuation, tense shifts, and informal phrasings ('change My view', 'an scholarship') that are common in spontaneous human writing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, emotional nuance, and contextual specificity suggest genuine human experience instead of generated generic text. Therefore my decision is HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a highly personal, conversational Reddit-style voice with specific cultural details (pianist, 17 years old, Mexico) and idiosyncratic phrasings that are typical of human writing. Second, it contains typographical errors and inconsistent word choices ('feel' for 'felt', 'composerinterpreter') plus uneven sentence structure suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the emotional nuance, repetition, and locally grounded specifics (Chopin's Etude op10 no3, local conservatory in the capital) point to lived experience instead of generic AI-generated text. For these reasons I judge it HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a highly personal, conversational Reddit-style voice with specific cultural details (Mexico, local conservatory, Chopin's Etude op10 no3) that AI rarely replicate so naturally. Second, it contains typographical errors, tense shifts, run-on sentences, and informal phrasings ('any tips on my example') suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, emotional nuance, and anecdotal focus point to genuine human experience instead of generic AI-generated text. Therefore, HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
{
"rationale": "First, the post shows a highly personal, colloquial forum-style voice with specific lived details (age, location, family finances) typical of human user posts. Second, it contains multiple typographical errors, inconsistent punctuation/capitalization, and idiosyncratic phrasings ('an scholarship', missing apostrophes) suggesting spontaneous human typing rather than polished AI output. Moreover, the uneven structure, repetition, and emotionally grounded concerns align with genuine human writing patterns instead of common AI-generated genericities. For these reasons I judge the text to be HUMAN",
"verdict": "HUMAN"
}
|
[
{
"content": "You are an expert in textual forensics. Your job is to decide whether the following text is AI-generated or human-written. Please reason step by step, considering the style, structure, and content of the text. Justify your decision by pointing out specific features or characteristics of the text that suggest it is either AI or human-written. Use conjuction words such as \"first\", \"second\", \"moreover\" etc and end with your decision in your reasoning.\nReturn STRICT JSON with fields exactly:\n{\n \"rationale\": \"<3-5 concise sentences explaining your reasoning>\",\n \"verdict\": \"AI\" or \"HUMAN\"\n}\n",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Please analyze the following text: Hi CMV, let me present myself, I'm a 17 year old pianist, have been taking lessons since 10, and only till now I have wanted to have a serious music career as a composer more than a interpreter. But I feel that the fact that I have almost no money to spend on my musical education is making me think I may not be able to become a good composer. The only lessons I have ever taken, and still take, are piano lessons where I learn a bit of theory, but very slowly, and my teacher helps me at playing pieces I want or she wants, mostly classical, the last piece I played was Chopin's Etude op10 no3. I have seen many biographies of some composers and I see that most of them took classes at a very early age, something I didn't because my family has never feel interested in classical music, not till I wanted to take lessons for piano at 10. Most of them also took constant musical lessons through all their early life, all the education I have are my piano lessons, this is due to the fact that I don't have much money to spend on many lessons or a better teacher. I live in Mexico and the best musical conservatory (university) is in the capital, and I don't think I could afford to go there unless I have an scholarship which is very unlikely. Although theres one in my local city, but of course, not as good. All this leads me to believe that anyone who wants to become a good classical music composerinterpreter needs either a lot of money to pay all those high level teachers and lessons, or one needs to have a lot of talent and be a natural like Chopin did. And me as a simple guy who simply has a lot of enthusiasm and love for music will have quite a hard time becoming a decent composer. Please change My view, all this is making me think is that I can't have a future with the one thing I love. Any tips on my example will be appreciated as well.",
"role": "user"
}
] |
HUMAN
| 567
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 20