even moreso than the lazy people who use AI for everything. Like if I write a medium length post, by hand, like I'm doing right now, there is a good chance that, even if I make a few typos here and there, someone will be so overwhelmed by it that they accuse it of Muh ChatGPT… it's becoming impossible to have conversations on the internet because if you're smarter than a person who spams short hostile sentences, you're assumed to be AI, or some kind of paid shill. What a race to the bottom that is!
There's definitely something to be said about AI and bots killing serious discourse on the internet.
Then again
<serious discourse
>on the internet
Some people might say pick one
The alternative webs like I2P would like to thank AI for shitting up the clearnet so badly that they see growth
>>31954Discourse was already insufferable because you couldn't just express opinions without
>Source?demanding every post online to be a university-level essay, to which the inevitable reaction is
>TL;DRChatGPT is just automating that process tbh, because everything it spits out is sourced-if-misinterpreted.
It's still mercifully easy to detect when a post is AI. these things were mostly trained by ESL somalis with dubious grasp of certain idioms. And ChatGPT still loves doing these ridiculous parting shots like "its not just X; it's Y"
>>31959Nah it will flat-out make up sources all the time, the fact that it claims to have sources means nothing. The amount of work you have to do to fact-check them defeats the purpose of using them in the first place. It doesn't actually save you any time if you're at all concerned about accuracy. Only people using it are simultaneously lazy and don't care about the veracity of the content.
>>31988They were mostly trained on reddit. If it sounds like a reddit post and it's not on reddit, it's very likely AI.