Your comment is well written but not grammatically correct, since your second sentence is a fragment, and the pronoun “which” has no antecedent.
ChatGPT writes like a corporation. It’s unmistakable. I read about a book a day, and this idea that I’m going to mistake good writing for AI slop is insane. AI cannot write creatively. It follows rigid patterns by design. It’s writing is ugly and stupid and if a person sounds like AI it’s probably because they’re a corporation or a dumbass.
I politely disagree. Given the metric fuckton of books it ingested in training, I find it hard to believe that it cannot produce something “in the style of” that would pass most cursory examinations.
As for my grammar, I believe that sentence fragments are an acceptable stylistic device when creating emphasis, at least in more informal settings. I would say comment sections qualify, wouldn’t you agree?
Your comment is well written but not grammatically correct, since your second sentence is a fragment, and the pronoun “which” has no antecedent.
ChatGPT writes like a corporation. It’s unmistakable. I read about a book a day, and this idea that I’m going to mistake good writing for AI slop is insane. AI cannot write creatively. It follows rigid patterns by design. It’s writing is ugly and stupid and if a person sounds like AI it’s probably because they’re a corporation or a dumbass.
I politely disagree. Given the metric fuckton of books it ingested in training, I find it hard to believe that it cannot produce something “in the style of” that would pass most cursory examinations.
As for my grammar, I believe that sentence fragments are an acceptable stylistic device when creating emphasis, at least in more informal settings. I would say comment sections qualify, wouldn’t you agree?
What you find hard to believe and reality are clearly divergent.
And I never said your flawed grammar was bad. My point was to the contrary.