zlacker

>>segfau+(OP)
Is it just me or does the formatting of this feel like ChatGPT (numbered lists, "Key Takeaways", and just the general phrasing of things)? It's not necessarily an issue if you checked over it properly but if you did use it then it might be good to mention that for transparency, because people can tell anyway and it might feel slightly otherwise

(or maybe you just have a similar writing style)

>>circui+s4
> might be good to mention that for transparency, because people can tell anyway and it might feel slightly otherwise

Devil's advocate: why does it matter (apart from "it feels wrong")? As long as the conclusions are sound, why is it relevant whether AI helped with the writing of the report?

>>markso+Q4
Because AI isn't so hot on the "I" yet, and if you ask it to generate this kind of document it might just make stuff up. And there is too much content on the internet to delve deep on whatever you come across to understand the soundness of it. Obviously you need to do it at some point with some things, but few people do it all the time with everything.

Pretty much everyone has heuristics for content that feels like low quality garbage, and currently seeing the hallmarks of AI seems like a mostly reasonable one. Other heuristics are content filled with marketing speak, tons of typos, whatever.