4 ms·

+1 on the "hang on I'm reading the output of ChatGPT :/" - it took me until halfway through the article to realize. Ugh, that's not an easy/low-effort skill to

+1 on the "hang on I'm reading the output of ChatGPT :/" - it took me until halfway through the article to realize. Ugh, that's not an easy/low-effort skill to pick up and run autonomously without effort.

ryandvm 3y ago
If you can't tell then why would you care?
- johncalvinyoung 3y ago
  The frequency of published medium-length pieces with a low signal to noise ratio (which I generally avoid, whether human-generated or not) does seem to be going up with the proliferation of LLMs.
- afastow 3y ago
  First of all they could tell, they noticed it halfway through not after the fact. I noticed it instantly when I saw an article from a site I'm not familiar with an article on a niche topic with zero timeliness. Secondly the reason to care is that it's a waste of time. There are an infinite number of stories that sound vaguely interesting enough to click on. Previously there was a sort of filter of "and that someone actually investigated and decided it was indeed interesting enough to write about". That didn't happen here. The article tells you absolutely nothing beyond that it was retired, potentially because "new radar technologies threaten even these powerful stealth bombers. Therefore, the F-117, optimized to defeat high-frequency radars, is no longer relevant in current fights." Is that even true? I don't know. There's a good chance it is, ChatGPT is right more often than it's wrong. But I'm pretty confident that there probably wasn't any human involved with the expertise necessary to fact check it. And the bigger problem is that it isn't really interesting, at all. Maybe it could have been if it went into more detail into why and how exactly it stopped being effective at stealth because of modern radar. But it doesn't go into anything like that because it was written by a chatbot which was prompted by a human who only wanted some words they could publish, not any actually useful or interesting information.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  I could tell that the article was what my English teacher used to call "waffle" - i.e. a lengthy, meandering stream of vague and low-relevance verbiage - a while before I suspected ChatGPT.

ryandvm 3y ago

If you can't tell then why would you care?

johncalvinyoung 3y ago
The frequency of published medium-length pieces with a low signal to noise ratio (which I generally avoid, whether human-generated or not) does seem to be going up with the proliferation of LLMs.
afastow 3y ago
First of all they could tell, they noticed it halfway through not after the fact. I noticed it instantly when I saw an article from a site I'm not familiar with an article on a niche topic with zero timeliness. Secondly the reason to care is that it's a waste of time. There are an infinite number of stories that sound vaguely interesting enough to click on. Previously there was a sort of filter of "and that someone actually investigated and decided it was indeed interesting enough to write about". That didn't happen here. The article tells you absolutely nothing beyond that it was retired, potentially because "new radar technologies threaten even these powerful stealth bombers. Therefore, the F-117, optimized to defeat high-frequency radars, is no longer relevant in current fights." Is that even true? I don't know. There's a good chance it is, ChatGPT is right more often than it's wrong. But I'm pretty confident that there probably wasn't any human involved with the expertise necessary to fact check it. And the bigger problem is that it isn't really interesting, at all. Maybe it could have been if it went into more detail into why and how exactly it stopped being effective at stealth because of modern radar. But it doesn't go into anything like that because it was written by a chatbot which was prompted by a human who only wanted some words they could publish, not any actually useful or interesting information.
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
I could tell that the article was what my English teacher used to call "waffle" - i.e. a lengthy, meandering stream of vague and low-relevance verbiage - a while before I suspected ChatGPT.