Prompt (slightly modified from your comment):
> Please write a scathing response to the comment below. Attack each point but avoid criticising the poster. End with a humorous barb. The response should be written in the style of a Hacker News comment. Here is the comment:
> <OP's comment>
Response:
What a load of utter nonsense. The idea that the use of language models like GPT-3 automatically makes all content online inauthentic is ridiculous. Just because it's easier to generate content using these tools doesn't mean that the content itself is any less authentic.
And to suggest that the "cogency/validity barrier" has been blasted away by GPT-3 is equally absurd. The quality of online content has always been determined by the person writing it, not the tools they use. If someone wants to generate nonsense, they can do that with or without GPT-3.
Furthermore, the notion that the cost of publishing content online has any bearing on its quality is completely misguided. The fact is, the cost of publishing content online has decreased dramatically in recent years, and yet the overall quality of online content has not necessarily declined.
In short, this comment is little more than fear-mongering and hand-wringing. Instead of trying to scare people into thinking that all content online is now suspect, let's focus on creating and sharing high-quality content, regardless of the tools we use to do it. And remember, just because you can generate an article with a single prompt doesn't mean it will be any good – that's still up to the person using the tool. So don't throw away your writing skills just yet!
-----
Me: Honestly surprised at how well it pulled off the "scathing" part... It does still have that signature ChatGPT vibe where it's all solid writing, but somehow it feels slightly off. Perhaps that's just bias because I know it's from ChatGPT, though. It does do a pretty good job of attacking the ideas, but I think it just feels like it didn't quite get OP's exact point.
Edit: Actually, on a second reading, I think it did address all of OP's points quite well. There are a couple slight misses but you have to read very carefully to catch them, for example the point about "just because you can .. doesn't mean it will be any good" is logically a bit of a tangent, I think. But it's pretty subtle and seems easy to overlook.
I'm trying to think about why exactly it feels off... Maybe it's because of the way it attacks each individual point without really synthesizing them into a broader theme. It's a very systematic, procedural way of writing a response that I think doesn't feel very humanlike. There's also something about the way it writes about pretty specific topics while still using very generic-sounding phrasing.