zlacker

While I'm on the fence, and don't disagree with the point, this is an awful example to use.

The whole comment is written in a very noticeable Chat GPT "voice", making it very easy to tell it was generated by Chat GPT.

It's also not a particularly fun comment.

>>aussie+(OP)
Yeah OK, next time we'll try again without the reveal, let's see how that will turn out.

>>aussie+(OP)
really? i could see myself writing exactly the same. it s too short to tell if it's gpt. Perhaps the only thing missing is imperfect capitalization / spelling (The last line was completely improvised by itself btw)

>>seydor+6d
It was pretty clear to me before hitting your disclaimer. I suppose right now, three sentences is plenty. I feel that I shouldn't go into detail about the noteworthy features.

>>Democr+g3
I'd be interested to find out.

Despite your scepticism, there are a few things that gave this one away.

Repeating the subject noun rather than changing to "it" after the first use is the biggest one in this example. It sounds very unnatural to keep saying "ChatGPT", especially three sentences in a row, but ChatGPT seems to do it quite often.

Having said that, I'm not confident I could do much better than 50/50 when not primed with the knowledge that people are likely to post generated content right now, plus the context of the conversation.