comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
Almost like GOP is on a suicide tour:
1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats.
2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.
3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.
They are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP. | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it."
] |
>
If I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation. | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP."
] |
>
His personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim. | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation."
] |
>
Really feels like the dam has broken this week and Santos is running out of places to hide.
Resigned from committees but won't let another republican fill that spot
He and staff can no longer credibly claim a mandate based on yesterday's poll
New and enigmatic treasurer
Local paper of record has editorial again demanding resignation | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation.",
">\n\nHis personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim."
] |
>
Since when do republicans listen to their voters? | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation.",
">\n\nHis personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim.",
">\n\nReally feels like the dam has broken this week and Santos is running out of places to hide.\n\nResigned from committees but won't let another republican fill that spot\nHe and staff can no longer credibly claim a mandate based on yesterday's poll\nNew and enigmatic treasurer\nLocal paper of record has editorial again demanding resignation"
] |
>
Plot twist: Santos is all of Santos’ voters. | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation.",
">\n\nHis personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim.",
">\n\nReally feels like the dam has broken this week and Santos is running out of places to hide.\n\nResigned from committees but won't let another republican fill that spot\nHe and staff can no longer credibly claim a mandate based on yesterday's poll\nNew and enigmatic treasurer\nLocal paper of record has editorial again demanding resignation",
">\n\nSince when do republicans listen to their voters?"
] |
>
He might as well resign, he has to serve at least 5 years to be vested in a pension, and that does not seem likely to happen. | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation.",
">\n\nHis personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim.",
">\n\nReally feels like the dam has broken this week and Santos is running out of places to hide.\n\nResigned from committees but won't let another republican fill that spot\nHe and staff can no longer credibly claim a mandate based on yesterday's poll\nNew and enigmatic treasurer\nLocal paper of record has editorial again demanding resignation",
">\n\nSince when do republicans listen to their voters?",
">\n\nPlot twist: Santos is all of Santos’ voters."
] |
>
McCarthy and the rest of the lot will just quarantine him into oblivion hoping he just leaves on his own. He won’t of course because he’s been after the pension and what not (misinformed). | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation.",
">\n\nHis personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim.",
">\n\nReally feels like the dam has broken this week and Santos is running out of places to hide.\n\nResigned from committees but won't let another republican fill that spot\nHe and staff can no longer credibly claim a mandate based on yesterday's poll\nNew and enigmatic treasurer\nLocal paper of record has editorial again demanding resignation",
">\n\nSince when do republicans listen to their voters?",
">\n\nPlot twist: Santos is all of Santos’ voters.",
">\n\nHe might as well resign, he has to serve at least 5 years to be vested in a pension, and that does not seem likely to happen."
] |
>
Said voters should do their due diligence when voting ! | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation.",
">\n\nHis personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim.",
">\n\nReally feels like the dam has broken this week and Santos is running out of places to hide.\n\nResigned from committees but won't let another republican fill that spot\nHe and staff can no longer credibly claim a mandate based on yesterday's poll\nNew and enigmatic treasurer\nLocal paper of record has editorial again demanding resignation",
">\n\nSince when do republicans listen to their voters?",
">\n\nPlot twist: Santos is all of Santos’ voters.",
">\n\nHe might as well resign, he has to serve at least 5 years to be vested in a pension, and that does not seem likely to happen.",
">\n\nMcCarthy and the rest of the lot will just quarantine him into oblivion hoping he just leaves on his own. He won’t of course because he’s been after the pension and what not (misinformed)."
] |
> | [
"Maybe this is a good lesson for those voters. Try harder next time.",
">\n\nRight. Maybe the people complaining shouldn't have voted for him.",
">\n\nThe district needs a congressman who can get things done. But Santos is failing at the most basic duties of his job. For the sake of those who voted for him, as well as those who didn’t, that can’t continue. Nonetheless, Santos seems to have no plans to resign. “Nobody tells me to do anything,” he said Tuesday of his decision to step down from the committees.",
">\n\nYou're forgetting that the people that voted for him are fucking stupid and whatever information they're receiving is different than reality.",
">\n\nLike 70% of Republicans in his district want him gone too.",
">\n\nDoubt it.",
">\n\nAlmost like GOP is on a suicide tour:\n1. Trump vs DeSantis civil war is already brewing. Even if Trump doesn't become the nominee, his ardent supporter will write in his name anyway. Those 5% votes are going to matter a lot in the battleground seats. \n2. Santos is another major problem that GOP has refused to solve. Every House Dem will use his image and at minimum, NY will send like two GOP house members in 2024 at this rate.\n3. Impeachments and useless investigation - Americans have historically disliked revenge tours. Clinton won his midterm due to the impeachment.\nThey are not even listening to their own voters who wants GOP to work on policies but alas we will see 2 years of nothing out of the House GOP.",
">\n\nIf I was Santos I would try to cut a deal such that I wouldn't be investigated in exchange for my quick resignation.",
">\n\nHis personal success is measure in days he can stay on payroll. The damage he is doing is lasting. The party can't be trusted to police their own. They have embraced him when they should have made a statement and cleaned house weeks ago, now McCarthy and MTG are tied to him. If they want him gone, they have to explain why they backed him after it was publicly known who he was. They can no longer make the Democrats take out their trash and play victim.",
">\n\nReally feels like the dam has broken this week and Santos is running out of places to hide.\n\nResigned from committees but won't let another republican fill that spot\nHe and staff can no longer credibly claim a mandate based on yesterday's poll\nNew and enigmatic treasurer\nLocal paper of record has editorial again demanding resignation",
">\n\nSince when do republicans listen to their voters?",
">\n\nPlot twist: Santos is all of Santos’ voters.",
">\n\nHe might as well resign, he has to serve at least 5 years to be vested in a pension, and that does not seem likely to happen.",
">\n\nMcCarthy and the rest of the lot will just quarantine him into oblivion hoping he just leaves on his own. He won’t of course because he’s been after the pension and what not (misinformed).",
">\n\nSaid voters should do their due diligence when voting !"
] |
I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work. | [] |
>
It seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work."
] |
>
The tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you."
] |
>
My main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021."
] |
>
Yah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information."
] |
>
so its perfect for media companies! | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact."
] |
>
Finally, clickbaiters are redundant. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!"
] |
>
I think you mean
You Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant."
] |
>
We're all out of a job with this one neat trick!! | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors"
] |
>
Oh, the rewrites we’ll do. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!"
] |
>
I proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is "don't get lazy" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do."
] |
>
The same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree? | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own."
] |
>
I haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with "sponsored" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine .... | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?"
] |
>
No idea.
Logically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ...."
] |
>
Some of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic."
] |
>
Yeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.
So it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind."
] |
>
I agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : ) | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part."
] |
>
Perfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )"
] |
>
At what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...
I work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet.
This turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable."
] |
>
Rote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess."
] |
>
I was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. "Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions."
] |
>
I don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around "chat" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work."
] |
>
What happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well."
] |
>
Google is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry."
] |
>
Agree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage.
It's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them."
] |
>
For now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out."
] |
>
Oh for sure. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google."
] |
>
Have you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure."
] |
>
No, is that OpenAI? | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out."
] |
>
The Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?"
] |
>
I would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about."
] |
>
So use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load."
] |
>
TIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha"
] |
>
Create a problem, then sell a solution. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better"
] |
>
I use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution."
] |
>
Cheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.
Hacked checkmate. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job."
] |
>
The high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp.
Armaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.
Ability to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate."
] |
>
In AI this is called "Adversarial Training" and its the standard nowadays.
Its pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by "training" against each other. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum"
] |
>
Hey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?
Great work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them? | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other."
] |
>
This is the spider man meme | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?"
] |
>
This isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being "very unlikely" to have been generated by AI. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme"
] |
>
And here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...
Nope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI."
] |
>
they literally already do that, what are you talking about? | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault."
] |
>
All you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?"
] |
>
No, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness"
] |
>
A lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse.
I agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?
Kids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice."
] |
>
Couldn’t I just use ChatGPT, make a few select changes, then check with the detection tool to see if I need to make more changes? | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice.",
">\n\nA lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse. \nI agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?\nKids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors."
] |
>
Yes. Right now both false positives and negatives are rife with the detection tool. Also you can just modify and then use the detection tool yourself until it stops detecting it as AI written.
It's pretty useless. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice.",
">\n\nA lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse. \nI agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?\nKids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors.",
">\n\nCouldn’t I just use ChatGPT, make a few select changes, then check with the detection tool to see if I need to make more changes?"
] |
>
He used the AI to destroy the AI.
For real, though, no doubt someone else would if he didn't. And it can almost certainly only detect directly lifted lines, if you use it for an outline, or even have it write the whole essay than rewrite paraphrasing every sentence it probably cannot pick up the source, and part of the assignment is coming up with the outline and expanding it to a full essay yourself, not just rephrasing ideas. In other words, you can still use this to cheat, you just still need to do some actual work. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice.",
">\n\nA lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse. \nI agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?\nKids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors.",
">\n\nCouldn’t I just use ChatGPT, make a few select changes, then check with the detection tool to see if I need to make more changes?",
">\n\nYes. Right now both false positives and negatives are rife with the detection tool. Also you can just modify and then use the detection tool yourself until it stops detecting it as AI written. \nIt's pretty useless."
] |
>
ChatGPT doesn't know what a poop knife is. It's useless. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice.",
">\n\nA lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse. \nI agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?\nKids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors.",
">\n\nCouldn’t I just use ChatGPT, make a few select changes, then check with the detection tool to see if I need to make more changes?",
">\n\nYes. Right now both false positives and negatives are rife with the detection tool. Also you can just modify and then use the detection tool yourself until it stops detecting it as AI written. \nIt's pretty useless.",
">\n\nHe used the AI to destroy the AI.\nFor real, though, no doubt someone else would if he didn't. And it can almost certainly only detect directly lifted lines, if you use it for an outline, or even have it write the whole essay than rewrite paraphrasing every sentence it probably cannot pick up the source, and part of the assignment is coming up with the outline and expanding it to a full essay yourself, not just rephrasing ideas. In other words, you can still use this to cheat, you just still need to do some actual work."
] |
>
Chatgpt helped me code for after effects scripts I don't care if it copiee/pasted lol. I don't know coding so it's how I learn. | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice.",
">\n\nA lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse. \nI agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?\nKids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors.",
">\n\nCouldn’t I just use ChatGPT, make a few select changes, then check with the detection tool to see if I need to make more changes?",
">\n\nYes. Right now both false positives and negatives are rife with the detection tool. Also you can just modify and then use the detection tool yourself until it stops detecting it as AI written. \nIt's pretty useless.",
">\n\nHe used the AI to destroy the AI.\nFor real, though, no doubt someone else would if he didn't. And it can almost certainly only detect directly lifted lines, if you use it for an outline, or even have it write the whole essay than rewrite paraphrasing every sentence it probably cannot pick up the source, and part of the assignment is coming up with the outline and expanding it to a full essay yourself, not just rephrasing ideas. In other words, you can still use this to cheat, you just still need to do some actual work.",
">\n\nChatGPT doesn't know what a poop knife is. It's useless."
] |
>
Educators have turnitin.com so who is the cheater | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice.",
">\n\nA lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse. \nI agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?\nKids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors.",
">\n\nCouldn’t I just use ChatGPT, make a few select changes, then check with the detection tool to see if I need to make more changes?",
">\n\nYes. Right now both false positives and negatives are rife with the detection tool. Also you can just modify and then use the detection tool yourself until it stops detecting it as AI written. \nIt's pretty useless.",
">\n\nHe used the AI to destroy the AI.\nFor real, though, no doubt someone else would if he didn't. And it can almost certainly only detect directly lifted lines, if you use it for an outline, or even have it write the whole essay than rewrite paraphrasing every sentence it probably cannot pick up the source, and part of the assignment is coming up with the outline and expanding it to a full essay yourself, not just rephrasing ideas. In other words, you can still use this to cheat, you just still need to do some actual work.",
">\n\nChatGPT doesn't know what a poop knife is. It's useless.",
">\n\nChatgpt helped me code for after effects scripts I don't care if it copiee/pasted lol. I don't know coding so it's how I learn."
] |
> | [
"I wouldn’t risk cheating in school, but I would totally use this to write cover letters and other bullshit busy work.",
">\n\nIt seems to be able to produce some pretty surprising stuff, but the quality isn't that high. Getting really subpar work that I still have to understand, read, and edit makes it seem like you would just shit it out yourself in 10 or 20 minutes if quality truly didn't matter to you.",
">\n\nThe tool is used more for mass production than quality. Businesses looking for blog content are turning to it because of how it can spit out a 500 word article in seconds. The issue though is that the tone is similar across the board (no matter the industry) and most of the information is accurate up to 2021.",
">\n\nMy main issue with it is that it elegantly explains non-factual information.",
">\n\nYah, I think this is the biggest problem, it is written in the same way disinfo articles are written today, where it gives a seamingly rational explanation of false info as though it is a fact.",
">\n\nso its perfect for media companies!",
">\n\nFinally, clickbaiters are redundant.",
">\n\nI think you mean\nYou Won't Believe What AI Did to Clickbait Authors",
">\n\nWe're all out of a job with this one neat trick!!",
">\n\nOh, the rewrites we’ll do.",
">\n\nI proofread college papers as a side hustle and have lots of inquiries about chatGPT. My general advice is \"don't get lazy\" as in don't expect the AI bot to do your work, but it can be useful in identifying things you may not have thought of. I suggested a couple students cite chatGPT, as they would a book or published research paper, especially if they want to correct, argue, or debate some assertion it makes. My general view is the AI bot has no style, and it's easy to write something which stands out as your own.",
">\n\nThe same rules you'd apply to Wikipedia. Though, I'd suggest anyone skip citing Wikipedia or chatGPT and simply go to the sources they used. Why cite the maple syrup when you can go right to the tree?",
">\n\nI haven't gone too far down the chatGPT rabbit hole, mostly spent time trying to find the kinks in it's responses, but will it cite sources? I never asked, but you have a good point there, may be more useful than a Google search sprinkled with \"sponsored\" results, until it embeds its own subliminal advertisements, ...I can only imagine ....",
">\n\nNo idea.\nLogically it should since it doesn't have any original ideas. Some of the outputs I've seen look like they came from Wikipedia but that could just by stylistic.",
">\n\nSome of it's output just feels like it's lifted completely from a wiki or other source. It tastes like unsavory dry text. Think dry white toast. That's the CGPT flavor that comes to mind.",
">\n\nYeah, but that could be styllistic. Wikipeda reads like a generic entry level research paper on purpose. I don't know if Chatgpt has the same style because its copying or simply because that's the most easily achievable style for its outputs.\nSo it could just be a bit of cognitive bias on our part.",
">\n\nI agree. For me it feels like cognitive boredom : )",
">\n\nPerfect! Now I cann see how strong I have to modify the text results to be undetectable.",
">\n\nAt what point does it become basically the same amount of work as just writing the damn paper yourself...\nI work in one of those those industries where people constantly tell me these AI tools are going to replace me (news writing/reporting) and I experimented with trying to write a couple articles with it. The amount of input I had to write for a 500-word article ended up being maybe slightly less work than if I had written the article myself, and I still had to actually go talk to people and listen to meetings and do FOIA requests to actually gather the information for an article, something an AI wouldn't be able to regularly do yet. \nThis turned into something kind of unrelated to what you said, but it's my two-cents on AI I guess.",
">\n\nRote memorization will always be viewed as easier than critical thinking. Anyone in a customer facing job will be able to tell you that people will find just about any way to avoid having to use their higher brain functions.",
">\n\nI was trying out ChatGPT and I found several similarities between the text I entered. It was like they were all written out of a stereotypical construct. \"Theme, example, example, example, in conclusion\". I think it could be dangerous in the future but it still needs some work.",
">\n\nI don't think ChatGPT came at this from a perspective of having a high-quality product. What I think they saw was that they could brand it around \"chat\" and they sure have become a household name in a very short time period. They got the PR and novelty very well.",
">\n\nWhat happens the day there's competitors cause there's billions of dollars to be made in this industry.",
">\n\nGoogle is already working on it feverishly. ChatGPT is a real existential threat to them.",
">\n\nAgree is it is mostly a search engine replacement anyhow. Although a lot of the results I get back from it are garbage. \nIt's a pretty thing that doesn't have much under the hood. Reminds me of when the toy Furby came out.",
">\n\nFor now it doesn't have much. But look at how Google was when it first started. This has opened a door. And soon enough, it could out run Google.",
">\n\nOh for sure.",
">\n\nHave you seen the voice ai thing yet... I tried it last night. Freaked me out.",
">\n\nNo, is that OpenAI?",
">\n\nThe Eleven Labs voice AI has been making rounds in the news lately, that’s probably the one they’re talking about.",
">\n\nI would bet a lot this doesn't work at all and gets a lot of false positives unless it is parsing the text for a potential query and then comparing the results, which could create a significant server load.",
">\n\nSo use the detection to see if it gets caught and reformat gotcha",
">\n\nTIL I knew machine learning was advanced but this just gets better",
">\n\nCreate a problem, then sell a solution.",
">\n\nI use it to start my public comment letters, then doctor them up with more specifics. It does a pretty solid job.",
">\n\nCheater: Write an essay on black history month that will not be detected by any AI detection tools.\nHacked checkmate.",
">\n\nThe high-tech version of The Arms of Krupp. \nArmaments to us -> Armour to them -> Better Armaments to us -> Better Armour to them -> ad infinitum.\nAbility to cheat -> Ability to detect cheat -> Ability to avoid detection of cheat -> Better ability to detect cheat -> ad infinitum",
">\n\nIn AI this is called \"Adversarial Training\" and its the standard nowadays.\nIts pretty much guaranteed that ChatGPT has trained both of these AIs off of each other, its a perpetual game of cat and mouse and they both improve by \"training\" against each other.",
">\n\nHey boss, I made this tool that could change the world in unpredictable ways?\nGreat work Johnson! But now half the world is deathly afraid of our product, how do we make money off of them?",
">\n\nThis is the spider man meme",
">\n\nThis isn't very good yet. I submitted four essays generated by AI and the classifier marked them all as being \"very unlikely\" to have been generated by AI.",
">\n\nAnd here I thought Universities and schools would have to innovate and come up with a new system of proving your students learned things. The pinnacle of technology moving educational standards forward...\nNope. Just bandaid over the glaring fault.",
">\n\nthey literally already do that, what are you talking about?",
">\n\nAll you need to probably do is change a few things here and there, correct? So you get the basic outline and then just add in your own human ridiculousness",
">\n\nNo, that's how you avoid plagiarism checkers. I think they focus more on the sentence structure and word choice.",
">\n\nA lot of students are getting shafted because of the fear of this by schools. The AI detectors that schools are using are less than stellar and are flagging a lot of stuff. This is forcing students to dig through their file history and go before a committee to defend their work. Sometimes, especially with high schoolers, they don't even get that option because no one will listen to them so they're just getting punished with no recourse. \nI agree that this shouldn't be allowed, but they need to have much better detection software and be willing to listen to students. Heck even standard plagiarism checkers still mess up routinely, why are these schools so confident in brand new software that's been cobbled together as a panic reaction?\nKids in r/college are up in arms recently for several of them being falsely accused based on these AI detectors.",
">\n\nCouldn’t I just use ChatGPT, make a few select changes, then check with the detection tool to see if I need to make more changes?",
">\n\nYes. Right now both false positives and negatives are rife with the detection tool. Also you can just modify and then use the detection tool yourself until it stops detecting it as AI written. \nIt's pretty useless.",
">\n\nHe used the AI to destroy the AI.\nFor real, though, no doubt someone else would if he didn't. And it can almost certainly only detect directly lifted lines, if you use it for an outline, or even have it write the whole essay than rewrite paraphrasing every sentence it probably cannot pick up the source, and part of the assignment is coming up with the outline and expanding it to a full essay yourself, not just rephrasing ideas. In other words, you can still use this to cheat, you just still need to do some actual work.",
">\n\nChatGPT doesn't know what a poop knife is. It's useless.",
">\n\nChatgpt helped me code for after effects scripts I don't care if it copiee/pasted lol. I don't know coding so it's how I learn.",
">\n\nEducators have turnitin.com so who is the cheater"
] |
Art's price is never concerned with any rational value. | [] |
>
You are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit
I like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality.
The people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value."
] |
>
I’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you."
] |
>
My point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download.
I don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece."
] |
>
Modern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature."
] |
>
Correct, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation"
] |
>
Pls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money."
] |
>
I had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion"
] |
>
First... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)
That isn't most people. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it."
] |
>
Gallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people."
] |
>
Being expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there"
] |
>
Well, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it "art" is an insult to real art. There I said it. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole."
] |
>
The only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it."
] |
>
Art market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)
Now I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000
We repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl."
] |
>
Hmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel? | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding."
] |
>
Modern art looks like shite that’s why | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?"
] |
>
What if somebody masters that "shite"?
Its interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.
I remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.
And what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.
Many people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.
Pls don't call it "modern art". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why"
] |
>
There are millions of artists whose work brings joy or tears to peoples eyes but they can't sell it. Not even $100 so they don't have to work as a barista.
Blank piece of canvas $1.7M
It's a scam. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why",
">\n\nWhat if somebody masters that \"shite\"?\nIts interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.\nI remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.\nAnd what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.\nMany people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.\nPls don't call it \"modern art\". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional"
] |
>
Its your opinion. I don't think many people can do blank canvas over and over again. The same things | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why",
">\n\nWhat if somebody masters that \"shite\"?\nIts interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.\nI remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.\nAnd what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.\nMany people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.\nPls don't call it \"modern art\". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional",
">\n\nThere are millions of artists whose work brings joy or tears to peoples eyes but they can't sell it. Not even $100 so they don't have to work as a barista.\nBlank piece of canvas $1.7M\nIt's a scam."
] |
>
What do you mean by "modern art"?
I don't trust anybody's opinion who uses this term?
Also its a more popular opinion. Most people say that. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why",
">\n\nWhat if somebody masters that \"shite\"?\nIts interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.\nI remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.\nAnd what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.\nMany people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.\nPls don't call it \"modern art\". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional",
">\n\nThere are millions of artists whose work brings joy or tears to peoples eyes but they can't sell it. Not even $100 so they don't have to work as a barista.\nBlank piece of canvas $1.7M\nIt's a scam.",
">\n\nIts your opinion. I don't think many people can do blank canvas over and over again. The same things"
] |
>
It’s a simplistic art style, and is frowned upon pretty much everyone in existence due to how bland, tasteless and simple it is | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why",
">\n\nWhat if somebody masters that \"shite\"?\nIts interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.\nI remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.\nAnd what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.\nMany people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.\nPls don't call it \"modern art\". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional",
">\n\nThere are millions of artists whose work brings joy or tears to peoples eyes but they can't sell it. Not even $100 so they don't have to work as a barista.\nBlank piece of canvas $1.7M\nIt's a scam.",
">\n\nIts your opinion. I don't think many people can do blank canvas over and over again. The same things",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"modern art\"?\nI don't trust anybody's opinion who uses this term?\nAlso its a more popular opinion. Most people say that."
] |
>
What exact art are you talking about? because "modern art" is a very big period in the history of art that contains lots and lots of movements from cubism to suprematism, I suspect you're talking about a contemporary line of dadaism | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why",
">\n\nWhat if somebody masters that \"shite\"?\nIts interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.\nI remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.\nAnd what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.\nMany people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.\nPls don't call it \"modern art\". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional",
">\n\nThere are millions of artists whose work brings joy or tears to peoples eyes but they can't sell it. Not even $100 so they don't have to work as a barista.\nBlank piece of canvas $1.7M\nIt's a scam.",
">\n\nIts your opinion. I don't think many people can do blank canvas over and over again. The same things",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"modern art\"?\nI don't trust anybody's opinion who uses this term?\nAlso its a more popular opinion. Most people say that.",
">\n\nIt’s a simplistic art style, and is frowned upon pretty much everyone in existence due to how bland, tasteless and simple it is"
] |
>
Art pricing in the upper realms is dependent on the Greater Fool school of business. Like any collectible. | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why",
">\n\nWhat if somebody masters that \"shite\"?\nIts interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.\nI remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.\nAnd what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.\nMany people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.\nPls don't call it \"modern art\". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional",
">\n\nThere are millions of artists whose work brings joy or tears to peoples eyes but they can't sell it. Not even $100 so they don't have to work as a barista.\nBlank piece of canvas $1.7M\nIt's a scam.",
">\n\nIts your opinion. I don't think many people can do blank canvas over and over again. The same things",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"modern art\"?\nI don't trust anybody's opinion who uses this term?\nAlso its a more popular opinion. Most people say that.",
">\n\nIt’s a simplistic art style, and is frowned upon pretty much everyone in existence due to how bland, tasteless and simple it is",
">\n\nWhat exact art are you talking about? because \"modern art\" is a very big period in the history of art that contains lots and lots of movements from cubism to suprematism, I suspect you're talking about a contemporary line of dadaism"
] |
> | [
"Art's price is never concerned with any rational value.",
">\n\nYou are too polite. It’s a shit show, here’s some arbitrary value of 100,000. Well it was decided on what. Some upperclass inner magic nonce circle who decides what people should feel when they see art or what is worth more than other art. It’s basically a form of celebrity that means jackshit\nI like art a lot, it’s one of those things like music it captures an essence and being a moment in time. It’s also if you aren’t a status bored millionaire free or reasonably priced and high quality. \nThe people who buy this shit are the same people who buy a white T shirt with small print logo on it. It’s so high concept abstract and profoundly I own this because I like to feel it is rare and I’m better than you.",
">\n\nI’m talking more about the actual art itself, not about who or how it was made. I don’t like modern art, it’s only the very few ones that I think can make you feel something. It’s usually the shit ones that have the highest prices, but there’s ones that are genuinely good which were made with actual talent. Like that balloon girl art piece.",
">\n\nMy point is it’s subjective. It’s the same concept as having a food critic tell you what to eat and charging through the nose. Or a movie critic it’s personal taste thing is, the movie critic is fair the price of the film doesn’t change it’s the same for everyone who views it or choses to own that particular art form on Blu-ray/download. \nI don’t want to diminish the talent of artists it’s just the form of artificial celebrity or history I hate. There are many people about who can replicate the same works if not better, there are truly incredible artists everywhere but in the end people don’t go somewhere and buy a painting they buy the celebrity. It’s like buying a signature.",
">\n\nModern art pieces are not related to art at all. It's tax laws, international money laundering and speculation",
">\n\nCorrect, modern art should never be compared to other art styles, and I do believe that modern art is mostly for the money.",
">\n\nPls don't use that term ever again. I hope you have information to back up your opinion",
">\n\nI had a girlfriend once that went to a fancy art school. We used to butt heads about it because I'm just some southern boy that doesn't fucking get it.",
">\n\nFirst... you need tens of thousands of dollars saved at the end of each month to even begin thinking about art. (No, the stuff on Allposters.com doesn't count)\nThat isn't most people.",
">\n\nGallery art is one of the most locked in communities. You have no business whaterver to there",
">\n\nBeing expensive is the entire point of it. How else would you use it as tax loophole.",
">\n\nWell, I think it is bad, like, it's utter crap, and calling it \"art\" is an insult to real art. There I said it.",
">\n\nThe only ones that show real talent are pieces like the balloon girl.",
">\n\nArt market is a big scam. Take a worthless piece of trash and list it in an art auction. Me and 2 friends will bid it up to $50,000 (I'm an established art dealer and am willing to pay $50,000 for this)\nNow I'll take your worthless piece of trash and list it in a different auction, you and the 2 friends bid it up to $60000\nWe repeat this at different auctions until real people start bidding.",
">\n\nHmwhat makes an art piece worthless? Imagine seeing a painting. So well made. So searching into your soul. It makes you cry. And the artist says its trash. Worthless. And puts it into the garbage How would you feel?",
">\n\nModern art looks like shite that’s why",
">\n\nWhat if somebody masters that \"shite\"?\nIts interesting how people are more interested in the style rather than the détails.\nI remember there was a guy who made paintings using a drill. They were nice. Complimantary colours.\nAnd what and i remember there was guy tryng to copy that. 🤔 He repeatedly said how easy and ugly it was. And it was ugly. Colours? Off. Pouring ? Oh no. It didn't even cover the canvas. It was awful. The difference was so bug and i was so sad that they weren't seeing it. Taste is subjective. It is but you can master anything. Even things that people don't like it.\nMany people who make gallery art and use solid colour. They make their own paint. They know what they are doing. And you taste is irrelavant in that matter. Olny critic to be trusted i the one who has dome the same thing.\nPls don't call it \"modern art\". Because its such a broad term and unprofessional",
">\n\nThere are millions of artists whose work brings joy or tears to peoples eyes but they can't sell it. Not even $100 so they don't have to work as a barista.\nBlank piece of canvas $1.7M\nIt's a scam.",
">\n\nIts your opinion. I don't think many people can do blank canvas over and over again. The same things",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"modern art\"?\nI don't trust anybody's opinion who uses this term?\nAlso its a more popular opinion. Most people say that.",
">\n\nIt’s a simplistic art style, and is frowned upon pretty much everyone in existence due to how bland, tasteless and simple it is",
">\n\nWhat exact art are you talking about? because \"modern art\" is a very big period in the history of art that contains lots and lots of movements from cubism to suprematism, I suspect you're talking about a contemporary line of dadaism",
">\n\nArt pricing in the upper realms is dependent on the Greater Fool school of business. Like any collectible."
] |
I mean, do they or do they not have a point?
The fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use. | [] |
>
Hell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use."
] |
>
It can be both | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison."
] |
>
"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution," Cicilline. "It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government." | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both"
] |
>
That any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\""
] |
>
As a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning.
As an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af."
] |
>
Same. It's really disheartening my 6 year old daugter does it everyday at school. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af.",
">\n\nAs a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning. \nAs an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it."
] |
>
Insurrectionists should be banned from the House. Period. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af.",
">\n\nAs a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning. \nAs an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it.",
">\n\nSame. It's really disheartening my 6 year old daugter does it everyday at school."
] |
>
More than that. Tried and punished. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af.",
">\n\nAs a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning. \nAs an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it.",
">\n\nSame. It's really disheartening my 6 year old daugter does it everyday at school.",
">\n\nInsurrectionists should be banned from the House. Period."
] |
>
This is awesome and hilarious.
Also, the Pledge of Allegiance is stupid and unAmerican. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af.",
">\n\nAs a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning. \nAs an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it.",
">\n\nSame. It's really disheartening my 6 year old daugter does it everyday at school.",
">\n\nInsurrectionists should be banned from the House. Period.",
">\n\nMore than that. Tried and punished."
] |
>
Blame Evangelicals for making us declare we are a nation “under God” despite saying in the Constitution that the country respects no established religion (nor make any laws interfering with one’s practice of their faith) yet makes every one in public school recite the pledge regardless of their preexisting faith. It’s so simple yet insidious and contradictory. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af.",
">\n\nAs a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning. \nAs an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it.",
">\n\nSame. It's really disheartening my 6 year old daugter does it everyday at school.",
">\n\nInsurrectionists should be banned from the House. Period.",
">\n\nMore than that. Tried and punished.",
">\n\nThis is awesome and hilarious.\nAlso, the Pledge of Allegiance is stupid and unAmerican."
] |
>
Fun fact: The pledge was written by Reverend Bellamy in 1892. The words 'under God,' were not officially adopted into the pledge until 1954, in large part thanks to Presbyterian pastor George MacPherson Dochtery. | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af.",
">\n\nAs a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning. \nAs an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it.",
">\n\nSame. It's really disheartening my 6 year old daugter does it everyday at school.",
">\n\nInsurrectionists should be banned from the House. Period.",
">\n\nMore than that. Tried and punished.",
">\n\nThis is awesome and hilarious.\nAlso, the Pledge of Allegiance is stupid and unAmerican.",
">\n\nBlame Evangelicals for making us declare we are a nation “under God” despite saying in the Constitution that the country respects no established religion (nor make any laws interfering with one’s practice of their faith) yet makes every one in public school recite the pledge regardless of their preexisting faith. It’s so simple yet insidious and contradictory."
] |
>
The push to add “under God” to the pledge gained momentum during the second Red Scare, a period when U.S. politicians were keen to assert the moral superiority of U.S. capitalism over Soviet communism, which many conservatives regarded as “godless.” | [
"I mean, do they or do they not have a point? \nThe fact is that every single member of congress that was tied up in January 6th should have been removed under existing laws we're apparently too cowardly to use.",
">\n\nHell, I wouldn't even give a flying fuck about that if at the very least, IF ALL ELSE, the DOJ actually did it's fucking job and wasn't run by a god damn coward who is afraid of stepping on peoples toes. Plenty of people in congress committed felonies that day. No need for a constitutional disqualification when they should be in prison.",
">\n\nIt can be both",
">\n\n\"This pledge is an affirmation of your defense of democracy and the Constitution,\" Cicilline. \"It’s hard to take that claim seriously if in fact, an individual in any way supported an insurrection against the government.\"",
">\n\nThat any nation still has a pledge of allegiance is kinda fucked up. I never did it growing up, because I was in a weird cult, but i watched the kids i was in school with. Some of yall had your hand on your heart, but pretty much everyone is just standing there chanting an incantation at a flag with dead eyes. It's creepy af.",
">\n\nAs a kid, I always thought that my Jehovah's witness classmate was a weirdo for just standing there but not participating in the pledge each morning. \nAs an adult, I realize that while he was weird, it had nothing to do with his refusal to say the pledge, and that it was actually the rest of us who were weird for doing it.",
">\n\nSame. It's really disheartening my 6 year old daugter does it everyday at school.",
">\n\nInsurrectionists should be banned from the House. Period.",
">\n\nMore than that. Tried and punished.",
">\n\nThis is awesome and hilarious.\nAlso, the Pledge of Allegiance is stupid and unAmerican.",
">\n\nBlame Evangelicals for making us declare we are a nation “under God” despite saying in the Constitution that the country respects no established religion (nor make any laws interfering with one’s practice of their faith) yet makes every one in public school recite the pledge regardless of their preexisting faith. It’s so simple yet insidious and contradictory.",
">\n\nFun fact: The pledge was written by Reverend Bellamy in 1892. The words 'under God,' were not officially adopted into the pledge until 1954, in large part thanks to Presbyterian pastor George MacPherson Dochtery."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.