▲ | ageitgey 3 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I didn't get an AI vibe from this post. Grammar checkers add em dashes, too. If anything, an AI tool would have written a shorter, less rambling post. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | foundry27 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
It’s easy to be fooled, myself included it seems :) For context, here’s a handful of the ChatGPT cues I see. - “wasn’t just my backup—it was my clean room for open‑source development” - “wasn’t standard AWS incompetence; this was something else entirely” - “you’re not being targeted; you’re being algorithmically categorized” - “isn’t a system failure; the architecture and promises are sound” - “This isn’t just about my account. It’s about what happens when […]” - “This wasn’t my production infrastructure […] it was my launch pad for updating other infrastructure” - “The cloud isn’t your friend. It’s a business” I counted about THIRTY em-dashes, which any frequent generative AI user would understand to be a major tell. It’s got an average word count in each sentence of around ~11 (try to write with only 11 words in each sentence, and you’ll see why this is silly), and much of the article consists of brief, punchy sentences separated by periods or question marks, which is the classic ChatGPT prose style. For crying out loud, it even has a table with quippy one-word cell contents at the end of the article like what ChatGPT generates 9/10 times when asked for a comparison of two things. It’s just disappointing. The author is undermining his own credibility for what would otherwise be a very real problem, and again, his real writing style when you read his actual written work is great. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|