NY Times Article Talks About AI Writing Style

I noticed one of the books for sale on Amazon touted that it was written by a human. I guess that's something people would like to know now, since everything is being taken over by AI.
It's showing up in academia too - papers with disclaimers like "no generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this report" or very specific statements about how these tools were used.
 
Last spring I read Ian McEwan's book Machines Like Me, which was published in 2019, just before LLMs were a thing.

It has an android as one of the main characters, and what I found interesting is that it/he speaks in what, to my eye, is a very recognizable ChatGPT voice.

Presumably McEwan did his homework for the book and had a good sense of the state of the art at the time - but again, a lot has changed from the 2018/19 timeframe it would have been written. This makes me think the chipper, homogenized patois we ended up may have been a predictable outcome all along.
 
I really think that what no one had predicted is that the AI's would be such consummate bullshit artists. They make shit up right and left, intermingled with factual information, in ways that sound very authoritative. Maybe even including citations to non-existent references. One saving grace so far is that the don't remember what they made up, so they become inconsistent if you ask them slightly different questions.
 
Thanks for the link, @MrPixel. Loved the article and paywall pass.

Curious question: will your NY times account tell you how many clicked?
 
Back
Top