Uh, should have used Claude. Gpt is embarassing.
You won’t get my point so I have to lay it bare: That doesn’t matter. Content counts and not the methods to create it.
Uh, should have used Claude. Gpt is embarassing.
You won’t get my point so I have to lay it bare: That doesn’t matter. Content counts and not the methods to create it.
You’re right. The content sucks, because it was created with an LLM.
No. It doesn’t matter whether it was created by an LLM or an Indian - as long as it is good. The methods are not important.
Skin color of the creator is not important. Even if their ethnic background is visible through the use of one specific word a lot and slang or dialect, it doesn’t matter. Similarly it doesn’t matter whether it was made with an LLM.
Argue with the content, not the methods or risk being boring and uninteresting and generally easy to dismiss
It matters if an article was written by an expert or someone that only has surface knowledge about the topic. It matters if it’s written by someone talented with words or by someone that has to churn 10 articles a day for a content farm.
So clearly not all sources are equal, and that applies to LLM too.
If you spend 4h of your time writing an article on something you care about it’s likely to be interesting. If the extent of the effort you are willing to put in the topic is 10 seconds of your time to ask ChatGPT to « write an article about phrack », then just don’t bother. We can all ask our own GPTs to do it for us whenever we want.
In theory someone could iterate for 4h with ChatGPT to get to the exact words they wanted to say without having written a line of it, but unfortunately for those folks, 99% of the content generated in that way will be nice sounding emptiness, and people don’t want to read 100 pieces of BS just to find 1 good one. There is too much content online and not enough time to read it all, we gotta filter somehow, and LLM sounding prose is one of the best filter available today.
> Argue with the content
I am. It sounds like it was written by an LLM. That's synonymous with uninteresting and derivative.
BTW, likening not wanting to read LLM output to racism is possibly one of the funniest things I've ever seen on this website. Thank you.
when i say 'written by an llm' i am skipping a step. it assumes the reader knows that llm style and diction is bad. but of course there are many reasons why it is so bad.
for example, i would describe this article as grandiose, overdramatic and excessively ornate. ironically those styles show a lack of humanity.
it has vanishingly little substance. take "a poetic snapshot of a subculture forming in the shadows". this is meaningless!
it's generic, everything about the article is stating the mean belief. where is the controversy, where is the drama that would justify these massive sentences?
you can also notice that everything about an llm text has this repulsive corporate optimism, a desperation to deliver a redeeming conclusion.
so this article says, the hero meets the challenge in the journey, "We used opcode charts like musicians used sheet music. We owned the stack." oh no. we reached the bottom. but! watch out! because, we will be redeemed, "That spark is hard to find now, but it still lives in the rarest of places". how about this: no it fucking doesn't, the spark is dead, bled out and buried in a block of concrete. end of article.
i studied humanities but i hope that readers of any subject would react the same way.
Hey juleiie, do you retract the death threat you made against me, or do you still stand by it?