I would rate this post highly. It’s clearly written, pragmatic, accessible, and seemed useful so I’d recommend reading it. Lately I find myself asking, is the

I would rate this post highly. It’s clearly written, pragmatic, accessible, and seemed useful so I’d recommend reading it. Lately I find myself asking, is the article “better” than what AI could produce? In this case, the article intuitively seems a grade above similar GPT 3.5 output. But why so? Is it just my opinion it’s better? How should “better” be defined? Readability, persuasion, effectiveness as a call to action? Truthfulness seems like it’s own can of worms. Are there any objective measures of AI vs human output quality to date? Which human? Yikes a new can of worms… Subjectively, it sometimes seems like the more I read known AI content the more I get a feel for its style. Oops - forgot we’re dealing with a master style chameleon. I think it’s more likely this perception is wrong and it’s easy to overestimate one’s ability to discern generated content. Apologies for the tangent. I hope it doesn’t detract too much from the more important point that the post is good and I’ve found some of the techniques very helpful.