81–83 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven't bothered to read it. GPT detector says it is 99% fake. https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/
Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I pasted the article text into the site you linked and it said 99.98% real.
‘I wrote a post using GPT3 and it got to the front page of Hacker News. Learn how you can do it to build your following as a creator!’
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why delete my comment on the publication instead of addressing it? Then why delete my second comment? And why not make it clear the article is generated by ChatGPT, at least partially? Also, this is a good example on why anonymous accounts writing content will be trusted less. You say you used ChatGPT for parts of it. Unclear on what “parts” mean and how much input you had, versus what the AI wrote. It’s a reason…
I am not as comfortable having a back and forth on substack than I am on HN. I am not sure as to why people who use tools like [1], [2], [3], [4] have to declare as such that the parts of the content may have been edited with help from computer tools if the end goal of conveying the information has been satisfactorily achieved. This seems like a rehashing of the "AI generated art is not real art" debate [5] again. [1…
https://openai.com/api/policies/sharing-publication/#content...