IDK. Haven't read anything like this before. But GPT-3 is notorious for plagiarizing, so chances are that your memory is correct.

GPT-2 was notorious for plagiarizing. GPT-3 is better, from gwern.net's blog post [0] and my limited experience of playing AI Dungeon, it appears to be really good at generating original writings by mixing, matching, and rewriting existing ideas. Sometimes they are verbatim copies, but more often they are rephased. For example, this is the output from GPT-3 after gwern fed a large number of quotes into the system,

> Real is right now, this second. This might seem trivially true, but it is trivial only if you identify the real with the material.

> Cameras may document where we are, but we document what the camera cannot see: the terror we experience in the silence of our eyes.

> No society values truth-tellers who reveal unpleasant truths. Why should we value them when they are our own?

Almost everything written by GPT-3 gives you a perception of "I've read something similar before", and of course, the ideas and meanings must come from pre-existing works. Yet, you often cannot find the original text, it has been rewritten beyond recognition. It's almost like Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation [1] - everything is a copy, yet with no original.

> The first stage is a faithful image/copy [...] The second stage is perversion of reality, this is where we come to believe the sign to be an unfaithful copy [...] The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the sign pretends to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as things which they have no relationship to. [...] The fourth stage is pure simulacrum, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever. Here, signs merely reflect other signs and any claim to reality on the part of images or signs is only of the order of other such claims.

[0] https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

This is a common misconception. It's actually generally pretty rare it plagiarises long phrases.

> In order for me to be born,

> Isn't that a quote from a book?

The good book isn't it? I can't say for sure or say who or when, but it seemed familiar to me too; I think it's biblical, but I'm pretty far from an authority on it.

(Specifically that part of the sentence/the structure I mean, not that the whole thing is plagiarised.)

That's because almost every short phrase of commmon words or structure has been written before. There aren't very many that we recognize as grammatical and valid diction. That's what grammar and diction is.

I'm not sure what you're point is? Both the other commenter and I felt that it was familiar to us, and the combination of that and that it's a rather unusual phrase made it stand out.

We're not sitting around going 'gosh it's like I've read your comment before' because everything you wrote is unoriginal.

your* (missed edit)

While I'm at it I'll add in case it's why my comment is so objected to that I'm not religious; that just doesn't preclude me from knowing or remembering bits and pieces, and recognising (or thinking I recognise) a phrase.

It's some kind of fancy Markov chain text generator. You probably read fragments of this sentence many times and they sound familiar, but the sentence is unique.