zlacker

>>gwintr+(OP)
I don't think this article was written by AI - at least, I am not sure it is - but the way it is divided up, the bullet lists and "key quotes" and breaking a relatively short article into even shorter sections, makes it feel AI generated.

Sounds like an interesting book but the article says remarkably little.

>>ivraat+s5
Thanks for the feedback. I try to keep track of quotes I like when I'm reading. This was an attempt to bundle them up into some useful themes. I'll try to expand into something more opinionated for the next one :)

>>gwintr+V6
Did you use AI to write this review, or was it entirely by hand? The structure, emphases, and conclusion directly match the way ChatGPT tends to answer my requests to summarize/analyze/compare.

>>peterl+zd
That's interesting. I didn't consider that it was AI at any point while reading it, and I don't use it very much. Going back I see what people are saying but I think it's more cohesive and compelling than what AI would write.

I agree that it's more of a "key takeaways" than a critical review but I appreciated that the author didn't make it about themself.

>>jrowen+lj
Great reception here.

Based on your attitude I know I’m safe to note something, something potentially all but irrelevant in the coming years: as soon as I saw the artwork I did a reverse image search and concluded it was likely generated.

I am unable to articulate exactly why, but it seemed to take away from the piece. Weird huh? (non sarcastic)