It's important to be cautious not to confuse comments generated by GPT with real ones. While GPT can provide helpful insights, it lacks the depth and nuance of human feedback. Always verify information from trusted sources to avoid misunderstandings or misinformation.

Nuance is one place where I think ChatGPT beats most of the humans I've interacted with. Only extremely nerdy people (which, in fairness, you'd hope be a defining trait of "people reviewing computer science papers") seem to do as well or better.

Depth, sure. ChatGPT is neat, but much to lazy for a full review — it tends to give me a handful of suggestions and then stop. I presume this is because the training set is humans on the internet and that in turn means "make 1-3 points in response to the previous commenter, then stop", not "mark this exhaustively according to a well-defined rubric, including for spelling and tone".

Now, that said, I've just re-read your two comments, and they absolutely pattern match to the kind of thing ChatGPT says. I'm curious, were either or both actually from ChatGPT, or has that style just become so prevalent that humans are mimicking it?

Are you the GPT here?

It's always funny to see a joke repeatedly go woosh over the supposedly intelligent HN userbase. Thank you for the laugh!

It isn’t being read as a joke because the expectation on this forum is that folks are posting seriously and engaging in good faith. There are enough other comment sections on the net that are full of unfunny jokes that add little value to the conversation.

It's being read as both.

See, the beauty in what we're now calling the joke, is that it's both a joke for those who know, and it's actual valid commentary that meets your expectations of this forum.

It’s not a joke. It’s commentary.