>shocking

Was it really all that "shocking"?

Seemed pretty expected something would happen with all the interest rate hikes, no?

[removed]

Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient.

OP, if you need any help, please message the mods here.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Users, please be wary of proof. You are welcome to ask for more proof if you find it insufficient.

OP, if you need any help, please message the mods here.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Do as you want, but microdosing with shroom made me help to sleep well. My head stopped running while trying to fall asleep. r/unclebens have a lot of link to help starting with this.

I don't search a debate here, only to show you an option.

It does not give it justice though. A few years ago plenty of people would have argued that AI could never emulate human speech properly. Now it does and people who claim to understand it are like "it's nothing special. I could have done it myself."

I just came across this (https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/11qrfin/comment/jc5ngci/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/11qrfin/comment/jc5leze/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) and felt like I hadn't given your comment enough credit.

There is some "uncanny valley" there.

To each their own. I don't see uncanny valley, like Polar Express. I might see mediocrity, like Law and Order episodes once you've seen more than a dozen.

I have seen many dozens, by the way, and enjoyed them for what they were. DUN DUN!

To my taste, ChatGPT used "in other words" well enough, better than some of my writing, and slightly better than writing that includes phrasing choices like "supremely average" and "pretty damn profound." 10th grade English teachers, writers, editors, and even some people who read for enjoyment might just judge those to be weak or lazy language. (Hopefully, the teasing comes across as good-natured. If not, I apologize.)

I see. How much for a book on negotiation tactics? I'm thinking 150 pages.

[removed]

[removed]

The "uncanny valley" feeling is still pretty damned profound there, don't you think?

For instance, have a look at the first paragraph:

>A ghostwriter is a professional writer who is hired to write a book, article, or other type of content on behalf of someone else, without receiving any public credit for the work. In other words, the ghostwriter's name does not appear on the work, and the person who hired the ghostwriter takes credit for the writing.

To my eye, that almost reads like an on-the-nose parody of AI writing: It says essentially the same thing twice, prefacing its second second with the phrase "in other words." Had the piece actually been intentionally humorous, it might have continued with "to reiterate" and another repetition... but instead, it just went right on repeating itself in the second paragraph.

A human who was casually reading the above passage might think that it was decent enough, but the façade would crumble pretty quickly once that same human started to pay attention. Put in slightly harsh terms, AI output reads like what you'd expect from a supremely average tenth-grader following along with a book entitled "How To Write Your Term Paper In Ten Easy Steps." There's no motion or melody or meter to the words; no change-ups in tone or timbre that might match the meaning that's meant to emerge.

(What I just did there was pretty clunky, but I daresay you get the point.)

>utterly atrocious

In your opinion, does this atrociousness show most in long essays? I don't picture ChatGPT writing for The New Yorker or The Atlantic Monthly; but its short work and code is… well… mesmerizing. Maybe my wonder is based on results relative to expectations I had and will wear off. I do find the code it writes to be useful (though too flawed to be a direct threat to my job, in spite of the hype).

I decided to give ChatGPT one chance to answer the question "what is a ghost writer?" The plan was to post the result, no matter what it showed. It's like a blind taste test, though maybe not of the thing you're slamming (a few paragraphs vs a many-page student assignment or book).

>A ghostwriter is a professional writer who is hired to write a book, article, or other type of content on behalf of someone else, without receiving any public credit for the work. In other words, the ghostwriter's name does not appear on the work, and the person who hired the ghostwriter takes credit for the writing.
>
>Ghostwriters are often hired by individuals who want to publish a book or article, but lack the time, expertise, or writing skills to do so themselves. Ghostwriters may also be hired by companies or organizations to write speeches, press releases, or other types of content.
>
>Ghostwriting is a common practice in the publishing industry, and many well-known books have been written by ghostwriters. However, the role of ghostwriting is often kept secret, and the general public may not be aware of the extent to which ghostwriters are used in the creation of written content.

1. First, although we've done all kinds including doctoral, in the UK a dissertation is generally more like a BA capstone.
2. I will say that there are schools, particularly online, where doctoral dissertations are not, ah, held to the same standard as they are in many other institutions.
3. In many cases, our role in a client's dissertation has been to work on writing (primarily editing) whereas the client did the primary research; we've also provided services like research coverage (writing summaries and evals of potential sources to use in lit reviews).
4. In a lot of cases, we've worked on doctoral dissertations as proofreaders, so we generally just did a final round of polishing / formatting.
5. But, yeah, for someone who wanted to hire a ghostwriter for a full, traditional dissertation, it would be a lot like hiring a ghostwriter or assistant for a long time.

We'd happily charge you more.

Hi,

The nice thing about our service (IMO) is that it can generally be whatever people want it to be. Ghostwriter, assistant, tutor, cheerleader, whatever.

Some of our clients are pretty hands-on. Some of them just want revisions...or proofreading...or advice / encouragement. Sometimes they come to us with drafts and outlines. Sometimes they just have hypothetical ideas, as in, "I really like this book we read in a class, this theory interests me, what about this argument?" and sometimes we go back and forth.

Although we've written lots of research proposals, I would suggest you first ask your school or department for examples. That would be free (or, "free" with your tuition, anyway) and presumably, those would have the benefit of really specific comments from your advisors, who would know the context of your eventual proposal really well.

That's another great question. Pragmatically, as in, as a business, we guarantee effectiveness by offering revisions, refunds in certain cases, and we work hard to try and understand what our clients want and need on a general level. Most of the time, they have pretty specific, transaction-oriented goals in mind and that is where our domain expertise comes in handy.

From the writing perspective, a lot of effectiveness has to do with understanding goals and managing expectations. I don't do the wacky aunt crackpot ebooks anymore.

Apparently this post was deleted and we have no idea why :( so I'm not even sure this comment will go through, but I do appreciate your thoughtful questions.

1. Use the rule of 3's. No more than 3 points / ideas overall (if possible), no more than 3 clauses per sentence, try to use 3 examples to support each claim.
2. Write in a goal-oriented way. If you're not sure about what you have written, ask what the sentence, or page, or paragraph, etc., is doing. If you don' t have a good answer, cut it or revise it.
3. Counterintuitive: Don't get so caught up in being "concise" that you sacrifice clarity or effectiveness (or so caught up in being "clear" that you sacrifice effectiveness and concision...etc.); don't forget that the best writing often violates prescriptive rules; don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Often, people are better writers than they give themselves credit for, and worrying about whether a piece of writing fits into the paradigm of "clear, concise, effective" (or any other) can keep you from evaluating whether it truly does - which you can generally learn best by letting it out into the wild.

I started to respond but then I got a lot of other comments and forgot to finish up, apologies !

What would you say are the three most impactful techniques for lucid dreaming that do not involve getting up in the middle of the night?

I mean sure, in this case it robs a fair bit of nuance from what the AI does, but it seems to get the point across well enough, particularly to people with a layman's understanding of the tech involved.

Well they got concise down...

I agree with you—in the non-answer, we have our answer. Not that I think that what this guy doing is cut-and-dry morally wrong, but the point stands.

They aren't employed as professors, seems easy enough to me.

So I have more to say about how to combat it, and I don't want to rush that response. But here's my answer to your first 2 questions:

Right now, those detectors are absolute trash. Only fools would rely on them and I cringe every time I see a post on Reddit claiming someone has been falsely accused of using them.

But they're getting better. I don't think TurnItIn (itself notable for a lot of false positives) is going to squander that profit opportunity, and as I posted in the r/unemployedprofs subreddit a few weeks ago, TurnItIn is already giving MVP demos of its AI detector to educators.

I also think that humans are becoming quick to recognize AI-generated content.
Especially the humans who care about words and writing and do a lot (or even just a little) reading - I think it was u/ramsesthepigeon who mentioned that its style has become recognizable.

ChatGPT has been out for what, 90 days? 100? By this point, its writing style (or lack thereof) is practically a meme. Like pornography, people know AI writing when they see it. So I think that very, very quickly, humans who have to assess a lot of written content will get better at identifying it, and the detectors will get better, before the AI generator game itself gets better and then we'll be in another round of this AI-vs-humans game for a little while....but even if the tech iterates before the detection tech, I think that people who've learned to identify ChatGPT writing will bring not just their skills in identifying it, but also their (potentially, by that point, reactionary) suspicion to what they read, which will make identifying it easier - even if it is also potentially a minefield of false accusations.