Also, the author’s other public writings have similar errors/choices in style. When “consumer AI” writes or rewrites, it’s impossible for it to mimic one’s writing style so similarly. Literally impossible, because it can’t disregard everything else that it “knows” (voluminous training, guardrails, interface design, social boundaries) for it to 1. Disregard all that training after processing the user’s prompt 2. output a complete article in the user’s style 3. Turn back on its knowledge 4. then continue to function. That’s just not how consumer products work.
Saying an article is of inferior quality just because editing was done by my 13 year old nephew is like saying a book is lower quality just because it was printed rather than written by hand
Obviously, this doesn't work because the content is changing. Printing a piece vs writing it by hand doesn't change the content, only the medium of transmission.
I hope you do some introspection and start consciously recognizing that the human input and the clanker slop is just debasing it.
There’s good AI writing and bad organic writing. But it’s easier to point out a few LLM-isms than to actually identify the problems with text.
Sure, but the LLM-isms in AI writing are mentally exhausting to see in every way at this point.
The whole point of reading, frankly, is to understand the voice of other people. When you pass that through a distorted filter that makes everyone sound the same... its bad, lossy, frustrating communication
It's also dishonest. When you publish something that is direct output without your wording. Digital catfishing at best.
The only good AI writing is providing the prompt, because the question is way more interesting, and way more constructive to learning than the answer
I think gp may want to know if a <person> has an interesting idea rather than <person + llm>.
In other words, since the idea generation component can completely independent from the writing component, what you’re asking is not possible in practice.