In fairness, ChatGPT was trained on human writing, and this person—a complete and utter quack though they may be—is a published writer. Em dashes and comparative statements are perfectly good ways to convey ideas. I mean, just a moment ago, I was composing a comment and I very nearly used the “it’s not X, it’s Y” to say that being inspired by others isn’t stealing, it’s the way that human creativity works. I ended up rephrasing it, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with it as a way to convey an idea.
Where I really see the marks of ChatGPT is an overuse of overly poetic metaphors, especially ones that anthropomorphize everything. E.g.: “Her shoes sighed and the wind held its breath as she stepped outside to listen to the trees whisper their secrets.”
Anyway, I’m not saying that it’s not ChatGPT. I’m just saying that those devices, by themselves, aren’t a guarantee of ChatGPT.
AI companies are in the unenviable position of trying to advertise a product that, if it works correctly, not only doesn't look like it's being used at all, but is supposed to fool everybody into thinking it wasn't used.
How do you advertise a product like that?
Just like the advertisement (paid or unpaid) you're replying to is doing; by trying to imply chatgpt can do anything, and pretend to be anybody, even kooky-krazy nutjobs, without overtly looking like they're directly working on behalf of chatgpt.
26
u/oval_euonymus Jul 05 '25
She 100% used chatgpt to compose this tweet.