3 ms·

It’s interesting that this matches _exactly_ the ChatGPT writing style. There’s clearly some human data and work behind, but the entire article has the usual “i

by dgfl 1y ago

It’s interesting that this matches _exactly_ the ChatGPT writing style. There’s clearly some human data and work behind, but the entire article has the usual “it’s not just X, it’s …”, bold emphasis on specific words, bullet points, and probably more that I’m just subconsciously picking up. Nothing wrong with using ChatGPT for help of course, I just found it interesting and kind of ironic given the contents of the article. It would be even more interesting if this was the actual writing style of the author, since this must be what ChatGPT was fine tuned to adhere to. Is it the predominant style of communication in adtech?

doc_manhat 1y ago
Yes I saw the AIisms and immediately went to the comments lol. It's interesting I still don't think that it's worth reading stuff that seems so obviously AI generated! If you can't be bothered to write or at least edit it I guess I just by default end up trusting the content less.
jrochkind1 1y ago
Lost me at "It all started with a simple, devastating problem." Tried to keep going, but "a strange, unsettling feeling crept in," yes indeed. Also please note OP is marketting copy for an analytics product that presumably says it will filter out bot traffic better?
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  “Her traitor tears betraying her”
Animats 1y ago
The picture looks AI-generated, too, or at least irrelevant clip art.
jmuguy 1y ago
Really ironic given the content of this post. Glad that humans are already getting pretty good at clocking this sort of BS quickly, makes it easy to ignore. Maybe a new idiom for our time. Startups want to fail quickly, I want to detect AI generated content quickly so I can move on.
getnormality 1y ago
The really ironic thing is that this article demonstrates the correct, purposeful human usage of these stock phrases and is getting skewered for it because it superficially sounds like AI. It's not exemplifying what it's criticizing, it's exemplifying the exact reverse of what it's criticizing. "It's not X, it's Y" is for when you know your reader will think X, and you want them to understand the difference between the X they are expecting and the Y that is actually the case. Here are the two "not just" passages in the article: > Driven by this discrepancy, I built a simple tracking script. It was not a sophisticated piece of software, just a tool designed to observe how "users" actually interacted with the website. I was not just counting clicks; I was watching behavior. > The bots operating today are disturbingly good. They are not just hitting your site and leaving; they are programmed to mimic engagement, making your marketing ROI calculations dangerously inaccurate. I began to categorize them. Both of these passages are using the "not just X, but Y" trope in a purposeful, meaningful way, anticipating what a typical audience member might assume and signaling for them to adjust their expectation. Not just trying to maximize the usage of the trope with random non-sequitur values of X and Y, as GPT does. (Oh dear, I just said it too.) It would be interesting to assemble a corpus of meaningful human text with superficial use of AI tropes, put it side-by-side with true AI slop, and see who can tell the difference. I suspect that, in the coming years, this will be a test posed in higher education and job interviews.
- dgfl 1y ago
  I mostly disagree. > I was not just counting clicks; I was watching behavior. This is completely superfluous. The rest of the paragraph is fine, but the only real ChatGPTism is this one. > They are not just hitting your site and leaving; they are programmed to mimic engagement In this case it’s a valid sentence. What makes it sound overly AI are the semicolon and the timing, which is exactly the usual “it’s not just {1-5 words}; it’s {1-5 words}”. Also, perhaps I’m not a typical audience member (I’m not), but I was not assuming any of that. I would try to explain how I parse this kind of language, but the gist is that a 10 sentence word with unambiguous meaning doesn’t really leave space for interpretation. Your attempt to “anticipate what the audience is thinking” is just a writing style, nothing deep about it. My point mostly being that, as I mentioned in the parent, this is clearly a text written in the ChatGPT style, with simple yet over-expressive language. I personally heavily dislike the style, but I’m a non native speaker used to either scientific or fiction prose. I don’t encounter it too often, and to me it sounds like a parody of Silicon Valley vernacular. Scam alerts immediately start firing in my brain. There’s no “good way” of doing it nowadays.

by dgfl 1y ago

doc_manhat 1y ago

Yes I saw the AIisms and immediately went to the comments lol. It's interesting I still don't think that it's worth reading stuff that seems so obviously AI generated! If you can't be bothered to write or at least edit it I guess I just by default end up trusting the content less.

jrochkind1 1y ago

Lost me at "It all started with a simple, devastating problem." Tried to keep going, but "a strange, unsettling feeling crept in," yes indeed. Also please note OP is marketting copy for an analytics product that presumably says it will filter out bot traffic better?

Forgeties79 1y ago
“Her traitor tears betraying her”

Animats 1y ago

The picture looks AI-generated, too, or at least irrelevant clip art.

jmuguy 1y ago

Really ironic given the content of this post. Glad that humans are already getting pretty good at clocking this sort of BS quickly, makes it easy to ignore. Maybe a new idiom for our time. Startups want to fail quickly, I want to detect AI generated content quickly so I can move on.

getnormality 1y ago

The really ironic thing is that this article demonstrates the correct, purposeful human usage of these stock phrases and is getting skewered for it because it superficially sounds like AI. It's not exemplifying what it's criticizing, it's exemplifying the exact reverse of what it's criticizing. "It's not X, it's Y" is for when you know your reader will think X, and you want them to understand the difference between the X they are expecting and the Y that is actually the case. Here are the two "not just" passages in the article: > Driven by this discrepancy, I built a simple tracking script. It was not a sophisticated piece of software, just a tool designed to observe how "users" actually interacted with the website. I was not just counting clicks; I was watching behavior. > The bots operating today are disturbingly good. They are not just hitting your site and leaving; they are programmed to mimic engagement, making your marketing ROI calculations dangerously inaccurate. I began to categorize them. Both of these passages are using the "not just X, but Y" trope in a purposeful, meaningful way, anticipating what a typical audience member might assume and signaling for them to adjust their expectation. Not just trying to maximize the usage of the trope with random non-sequitur values of X and Y, as GPT does. (Oh dear, I just said it too.) It would be interesting to assemble a corpus of meaningful human text with superficial use of AI tropes, put it side-by-side with true AI slop, and see who can tell the difference. I suspect that, in the coming years, this will be a test posed in higher education and job interviews.

dgfl 1y ago
I mostly disagree. > I was not just counting clicks; I was watching behavior. This is completely superfluous. The rest of the paragraph is fine, but the only real ChatGPTism is this one. > They are not just hitting your site and leaving; they are programmed to mimic engagement In this case it’s a valid sentence. What makes it sound overly AI are the semicolon and the timing, which is exactly the usual “it’s not just {1-5 words}; it’s {1-5 words}”. Also, perhaps I’m not a typical audience member (I’m not), but I was not assuming any of that. I would try to explain how I parse this kind of language, but the gist is that a 10 sentence word with unambiguous meaning doesn’t really leave space for interpretation. Your attempt to “anticipate what the audience is thinking” is just a writing style, nothing deep about it. My point mostly being that, as I mentioned in the parent, this is clearly a text written in the ChatGPT style, with simple yet over-expressive language. I personally heavily dislike the style, but I’m a non native speaker used to either scientific or fiction prose. I don’t encounter it too often, and to me it sounds like a parody of Silicon Valley vernacular. Scam alerts immediately start firing in my brain. There’s no “good way” of doing it nowadays.