Also, this is a good example on why anonymous accounts writing content will be trusted less. You say you used ChatGPT for parts of it. Unclear on what “parts” mean and how much input you had, versus what the AI wrote.
It’s a reason for people to stop reading anonymous authors, or articles that don’t make it clear that it’s not an AI writing part of the article.
I’ll be honest: I feel duped reading a wall of text to realise it’s at least partially generated, and this whole article could have been the prompts you used to generate it.
[1] https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B [2] https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/model_doc/bloom [3] https://www.jasper.ai/ [4] https://openai.com/api/ [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-...
Why have you deleted every comment on your post mentioning GPT-3? There were at least 4 or 5 comments mentioning it and you've deleted every one.
Just using the same language as the deleted comments.
https://openai.com/api/policies/sharing-publication/#content...
- This looks machine generated
- Hi! I'm the person who wrote this by using a machine to generate 'the words' but the important parts are original
- Oops, didn't cite my/its work
Especially in the context of an industry of content creation falling over.
Thank you both!
As for the erroneous citation to Forbes: there were two links, one to Forbes and the other to Digiday to backup the next point in the outline I wrote. While transferring the content from Huggingface to the substack editor, I missed that in the proofreading.