[cmiles74]

LinkedIn has started pushing generated content it would like me to edit, I think they said they use ChatGPT. All of the content is "okay" but there's no depth, out of the handful of articles I read they both had a section that repeated an earlier idea but with different buzzwords.

I agree, it's impressive how it can generate readable text that provides an overview of an idea. But the overview misses key points, or highlights things that aren't really central. For a lot of things, doing something simple like reading a Wikipedia page is likely more productive.

[ghaff]

That's pretty much what I've found when I'used it to try writing articles. They're mostly not wrong. But they lack nuance, examples, links, research references, quotes, depth, etc. They're generally shallow and formulaic. Might I consider using one as a stub to get me started? Sure. On the other hand, that means I need to deliberately break out from the formula. I'm not sure how much time it would save me at the end of the day but I may give it a try on something real one of these days.

[pavel_lishin]

I'm looking forward to people being hired to edit ChatGPT output... and watching them prompt ChatGPT itself, or another AI model, to do their work for them.