> As a writer, LLMs should only be research helpers and used to check for typos and syntax mistakes. Authors, please, do better
I know professional writers that are definitely no longer just limiting themselves like that. I think that ship has sailed.
Yes em-dashes are real but aside from a few NY-based magazines with real editors, writers aren't actually using them very much. I'm a bit sad because I like using them and now I think twice before doing so in case it is misinterpreted as an AI signature.
Yeah, so I gave that sentence to ChatGPT in a new context and asked it to make it longer without saying anything additional, several times, and it still reads fine, more than. The truth is the truth no matter how you put it.
The last one really speaks to me. I wanted to go on but it raised all sorts of questions in me that I think I should investigate instead.
It was, in that sense, a change that changed the thing that was being called something without changing the thing that was being called.
and
Everything that was not the name remained the same.
Everything that was the name was no longer the same.
Really makes you think.
I read that same sentence (and the whole article, which I loved) and it didn't trigger anything in me.
It reminds me a bit of the OMG GMOs! craze people used to have a while back (and might still have?).
>>Slowly but surely, it did, once again becoming a world-renowned brand, now separate from that of Thonet. The same town, the same factory, the same people—just a different name
The moment I see this, the piece loses all of its credibility. I cannot take any of the factual informations I was enjoying as implicitly correct now, I just can’t. Authors should edit LLM help in a much stricter way. As a writer, LLMs should only be research helpers and used to check for typos and syntax mistakes. Authors, please, do better