This is a good one. I also verify articles there.
I feel the need to defend myself to everyone in this thread. Here is the analysis by GPTZero:
I did not use AI for this, nor have I ever used AI to write on SN. You can check my post history to verify.
It took me about an hour to write the review. I wrote it from about midnight to 1am, 10/9, pacific time.
reply
20 sats \ 8 replies \ @k00b 6h
Tbf it doesn’t read like AI to ME.
Zerogpt isn’t maintained/accurate.
reply
Yeah, didn't strike me as AI either.
The language I (have to) use in scientific articles often matches quite well with what ChatGPT outputs. Say I write my abstract and ask ChatGPT to improve on it, it uses quite similar expressions and vocabulary. It just improves my flow which isn't always perfect as a non-native speaker.
reply
I've been trained like a Pavlovian dog to use neutral, hedged language, because if you use stronger language in an academic article referees will usually attack you.
Like if you say, "This evidence proves..." you will get attacked endlessly. If you say, "This evidence is consistent with... " then you get a pass.
(For economics, where evidence is often suggestive at best.)
reply
Even in physics, where evidence is supposed to be much less suggestive and be more of the absolute type, we also very much use hedged language. ChatGPT excels at hedging its statements ;)
reply
Initial 2 paragraphs are 100% and the rest of the article is well edited after generating through AI.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 5h
We can't know with 100% accuracy. Look at SimpleStacker's other content. Unless all their other content is AI, they just write well and in a rather normal/neutral tone.
reply
May be you're right and he's right as well. #715974
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe AI detectors are failing. Whatever it is.
The first two paragraphs sounded to me like AI and o just checked.
reply
To be fair, I can understand why the first two paragraphs might strike one as AI. Interesting conundrum we're in... but I suppose that means AI is getting much much closer to the Turing Test.
reply
Ran it through Quillbot, got 0%. Not sure what the standard is nowadays for AI detection though.
reply
It took me about an hour to write the review. I wrote it from about midnight to 1am, 10/9, pacific time.
This makes me wonder how can someone be so superfast. You're too fast. 1 hour and more than 5000 words. What a Speedster!
reply
English is my first language and i do a lot of writing in my job. (I work as a university professor)
reply
So, you mean to say you can keep on writing so efficiently without breaking the speed of 50 words a minute. You're a GOAT writer.
reply
I'm confused by your accusation. I just checked and the review is only 915 words?
reply
Brother, first of all I'm nit making any accusations. You can write the way you want to. I'm just saying that to type such a long article so cleanly within an hour isn't something that I can do.
reply