if they cannot make critiques of your content/comment without resorting to appeal to authority or ad hominem attacks (which i consider being accused of using chatgpt as one), then their "critique" is worthless and should just be ignored (with a comment saying so as a response).
I literally do not care that someone is using chatgpt, or anything generated, as a response or comment, or content. The content _itself_ speaks for itself, and the worthiness stands alone regardless of how it was made. Slop can be easily written by an author or ai, and pedigree has nothing to do with it.
Not sure if this is a bad thing. AI uses very professional and correct language (unless otherwise instructed) with well-structured paragraphs. If a system can't distinguish my writing from AI, it means that I'm doing a great job as humans sometimes make typos and structural/grammatical errors and AI generally excels against those.
Writer's have always needed thick skins in order to deal with criticism, this is just another insult they need to shrug off.
Yes, it uses very professional and correct language, but the times I've asked it to help me improve something I've written, most of the suggestions just suck the work dry. It is ignorant of those subtleties of meaning that are so important for proper emotional impact.
Human goal: be a better writer than AI. It's been trained on some good stuff, but also a lot of crap. I'd expect its output to be fairly average.
I work with a lot of non-native English speakers (with English as a lingua franca) and I’m more than happy for them to use LLMs to help them phrase their thoughts in a way that I can understand more easily.
I also sometimes use LLMs myself for low-stakes stuff, tidying up sloppy notes, etc.
I think it’s a bit Ludditical to want people to always write every word themselves. Should they also hand write it using a quill pen and ink they made themselves from oak galls?
There are some types of writing (creative writing, writing to persuade, etc) where the writing itself benefits from being hand crafted, but most writing is just an imperfect way of sharing thoughts.
But is it their thoughts? Another problem with LLMs is that while it sometimes can produce a better english phrasing of what they were thinking, other times it could be something conceptually different that they didn't catch because of thier english isn't proficient enough to see it, or worse case, they are just lazy and write broad vague prompts and accept whatever blob of text comes out.
No more lists of 3 things, no more emdash, no more vacant live laugh love level vapid niceties.
https://chatgpt.com/share/687cd655-1cd8-8010-926d-645cefe928...
When I write, I now go out of my way not to use lists or em dashes. I learned before LLMs, that using lists in writing was lazy. Even when I do use an LLM for writing, I tell it to explain everything in paragraph form. I start off with my own outline and then “discuss” what I want to emphasize.
https://brevity.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/10-reasons/
The second thing about LLM generates text especially when doing technical writing, is that anytime it explains something, even with a lot of context of what I’m working on, it always adds lines about “benefits”.
In my use case something like “this provides a secure, adaptable environment…”. I have had to remove wording I had like that on my resume before LLMs and definitely don’t put it in my own writing now.
Ironically enough, out of the four examples ChatGPT generated about “what makes a good leader” in the link above, the example of “AI generated”, is the one I would lean toward in my own writing.
Also, putting AI assisted writing back through a new session with ChatGPT and asking it does it sound AI generated multiple times, and taking its suggestions will make it sound less like it’s AI generated.
When I do write something “thought leader”ish which unfortunately is part of my job now as a staff architect, I give a lot of real world examples that couldn’t easily be fabricated by AI and lean on those examples as I make my points.
So only humans will have these things then?
But in the end, like the article implies, any comment could be "manufactured."
AI cannot be authentic, but it can look close enough to authentic for people who aren't paying deep attention.
Neither can the human slop writers, the internet turned to a stinking swamp full of slop content long before AI, what AI did was to actually improved the baseline slop quality by a huge margin(but an ad for weight loss is going to be slop even with high production values, just like the latest capeshit movie)
All these tears and tantrums over AI are so tiresome.
Of course "writing" itself will likely become passe as literacy drops with attention spans, and most AI interaction is done through dynamically generated video and audio. That process is already underway.
In my writing, I just go for it. If someone thinks it sounds like an AI, what can I do? (I don't use AI for any of my writing, for the record. What fun would that be?)
I also love using em dashes properly, so I guess that's points against. Vim: ^K-M gets you one.
But when I write something like a letter of recommendation or, heaven forbid, a cover letter, I do actually try to write it so that it sounds human. If someone suspects that the letter was AI generated, it becomes worthless. And I don't like to write worthless letters of recommendation.
bryanrasmussen•6mo ago
Admittedly it did make me chuckle that they thought AI sounds like a depressed character in science fiction, which was what I was writing. Poor AI.
I do use my share of em-dashes but hardly ever use the word delve, unless discussing something that Adam and Eve did, or if I were to write about Dwarves, Kobolds, Lovecraftian horrors and their worshipers because in those cases I would expect delving to occur.
Terr_•6mo ago
ggm•6mo ago
Em dashes are just an affectation.
Patrick O'Brien (aubrey/maturin) used "idoneous" which is how I learned it, and he was both pompous, and erudite. And plain when it suited him: he translated "papillon" as well as writing lit and biography.
bryanrasmussen•6mo ago
ggm•6mo ago
This is unequivocally NOT a Turing test moment. Simply parroting forms of writing which leads some people to accuse other people of being machines does not mean the thinking component is present.
d1sxeyes•6mo ago
Isn’t all punctuation?
ggm•6mo ago
mercer•6mo ago
JackFr•6mo ago
ggm•6mo ago
trod1234•6mo ago
That, or reading comprehension has dropped below a point in the young where they can no longer recognize or perceive intelligence, and so conflate AI with intelligence much like what is described in the Allegory of the Cave.
Lots of people are calling intelligent well read people AI because the accusers worldview can't distinguish those that are intelligent from those that are AI, or as an imposition of cost the same as any invective. Its just a new form of gaslighting.
You can't possibly be that intelligent so you must be AI. /s
We live in a wide world, which they don't realize because they've been coddled, and often lied to, where the lie traversed more than a generation. Brittle people break.
ggm•6mo ago
trod1234•6mo ago
People think intelligence is this static thing that you are born with innately, and they cling to this belief, often to explain those that are so much better as natural talent/intelligence. This is mistaken.
Intelligence is a combination of speed of association, mental framework, and experience/exposure to differing and disagreeing ideas.
Believe it or not, you are more intelligent today, than you were when you were at 15 years old. The things you picked up along the way towards doing things successfully made you more intelligent, and there are things that can make you less intelligent too. Trauma and psychological stress as an example.
There are thresholds where people can't become smarter because the speed of association is so slow or the interference so high, that it doesn't provide a connection of ideas. IQ of less than 83 is the cutoff the military uses.
The framework/mental model you use is quite important as well, because intelligent people aren't delusional. They are methodical, and test the structures they use, and are right more often than they are wrong by a significant margin.
People who have been tortured, had significant trauma, or people who were forced to learn by rote false things, and then forced to unlearn those things repeatedly, all have significantly slower speed of association, which is a precursor for comprehension.
There are physiological factors that impact these things as well. How healthy you are, whether you take supplements, exercise regularly...
People are protean by nature, able to overcome quite a lot of deficiencies; but often not everything, there are limits; and things that can damage you permanently in life, sometimes without you even realizing it. Those things are the most insidious.
strken•6mo ago
janice1999•6mo ago
"Fortnight" is by far my favourite, at least when dealing with my American colleagues.