3 ms·
Reading feels a bit like reading through GPT-3 essays. The fabric of spoken word is there and your eyes can glide through it, but you can't summarise any conten
by rich_sasha 4y ago
Reading feels a bit like reading through GPT-3 essays. The fabric of spoken word is there and your eyes can glide through it, but you can't summarise any content you have just consumed - then you focus and refocus and notice there is no content, just words.
- doubled112 4y agoI know many people that write like that as well.
- sph 4y agoIt is clear those responses were written by an attorney—the liberal use of underlined and bold text, Roman numerals to indicate the different sections, clarifying the terminology at the beginning of all their emails. It's an obvious giveaway. Also, they tend to be overly verbose but with no real substance as to waste everybody's time so it might look it was GPT-3 instead.
- rich_sasha 4y agoYou think so? It strikes me as very amateurish. Can't get to the point, ad hominem, says things that look incriminating (like, "we can't share that detail or we expose ourselves to lawsuits"). Anyway I'm not claiming it _actually_ was GPT-3, rather that it similarly lacks substance. It's instead creating an illusion of content with words.
- sph 4y ago> we can't share that detail or we expose ourselves to lawsuits That is not incriminating, that is standard practice: say the least amount possible unless compelled by the law, because even benign things could later be used against you. Corporate legal counsel often doesn't share the reasoning behind their advice for this very reason.