I downvoted this post because I think this genre of “essay written by GPT” has quickly become tiresome. If someone wants to use GPT as a sort of code completion for essay writing, and thus stands behind all the points, edits it for coherency and to ensure that there are deeper thoughts being explained, it’s no big deal. But just reading unedited GPT essays doesn’t feel like a great use of anyone’s time now that the novelty has worn off.
The essay was prepared from an extensive outline mostly generated by me.
The prose is GPT’s but most of the arguments are mine.
It’s not the case that the content is pure unedited GPT work. I did posit many of the actual arguments here. GPT was mostly used to turn my nested list of bullet points into prose.
I strongly downvoted for much the same reason. I’m not quite sure what to think about edited and fully endorsed posts largely written with some large language model.
On the whole, I’d much prefer to see posts written by people who are communicating their beliefs and experiences in their own words. It’s not just to do with AI: I’d also prefer not to read posts largely written by a public relations firm or similar. The trouble is that in either case it would be very easy to deceive me into upvoting instead, by just lying by omission about the source.
Quoting my reply to 9eB1: > The essay was prepared from an extensive outline mostly generated by me.
The prose is GPT’s but most of the arguments are mine.
It’s not the case that the content is pure unedited GPT work. I did posit many of the actual arguments here. GPT was mostly used to turn my nested list of bullet points into prose.
I downvoted this post because I think this genre of “essay written by GPT” has quickly become tiresome. If someone wants to use GPT as a sort of code completion for essay writing, and thus stands behind all the points, edits it for coherency and to ensure that there are deeper thoughts being explained, it’s no big deal. But just reading unedited GPT essays doesn’t feel like a great use of anyone’s time now that the novelty has worn off.
The essay was prepared from an extensive outline mostly generated by me.
The prose is GPT’s but most of the arguments are mine.
It’s not the case that the content is pure unedited GPT work. I did posit many of the actual arguments here. GPT was mostly used to turn my nested list of bullet points into prose.
I strongly downvoted for much the same reason. I’m not quite sure what to think about edited and fully endorsed posts largely written with some large language model.
On the whole, I’d much prefer to see posts written by people who are communicating their beliefs and experiences in their own words. It’s not just to do with AI: I’d also prefer not to read posts largely written by a public relations firm or similar. The trouble is that in either case it would be very easy to deceive me into upvoting instead, by just lying by omission about the source.
Quoting my reply to 9eB1:
> The essay was prepared from an extensive outline mostly generated by me.
The prose is GPT’s but most of the arguments are mine.
It’s not the case that the content is pure unedited GPT work. I did posit many of the actual arguments here. GPT was mostly used to turn my nested list of bullet points into prose.