Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RamsesThePigeon t1_jc5bdsk wrote

The "uncanny valley" feeling is still pretty damned profound there, don't you think?

For instance, have a look at the first paragraph:

>A ghostwriter is a professional writer who is hired to write a book, article, or other type of content on behalf of someone else, without receiving any public credit for the work. In other words, the ghostwriter's name does not appear on the work, and the person who hired the ghostwriter takes credit for the writing.

To my eye, that almost reads like an on-the-nose parody of AI writing: It says essentially the same thing twice, prefacing its second second with the phrase "in other words." Had the piece actually been intentionally humorous, it might have continued with "to reiterate" and another repetition... but instead, it just went right on repeating itself in the second paragraph.

A human who was casually reading the above passage might think that it was decent enough, but the façade would crumble pretty quickly once that same human started to pay attention. Put in slightly harsh terms, AI output reads like what you'd expect from a supremely average tenth-grader following along with a book entitled "How To Write Your Term Paper In Ten Easy Steps." There's no motion or melody or meter to the words; no change-ups in tone or timbre that might match the meaning that's meant to emerge.

(What I just did there was pretty clunky, but I daresay you get the point.)

1

sophware t1_jc5qdid wrote

To each their own. I don't see uncanny valley, like Polar Express. I might see mediocrity, like Law and Order episodes once you've seen more than a dozen.

I have seen many dozens, by the way, and enjoyed them for what they were. DUN DUN!

To my taste, ChatGPT used "in other words" well enough, better than some of my writing, and slightly better than writing that includes phrasing choices like "supremely average" and "pretty damn profound." 10th grade English teachers, writers, editors, and even some people who read for enjoyment might just judge those to be weak or lazy language. (Hopefully, the teasing comes across as good-natured. If not, I apologize.)

1