It's not just you. ChatGPT prompt "Write a short article about How to Stop Ruminating" gives about the same ...:
"Ruminating, or repeatedly thinking about a problem or situation, can be mentally exhausting and can lead to negative emotions such as anxiety and depression. However, breaking the cycle of rumination is possible with the right strategies. Here are some tips on how to stop ruminating:
Identify triggers: The first step is to identify what triggers your ruminating thoughts. Is it a particular situation, person or stressor? Once you know what triggers your thoughts, you can start to work on avoiding or managing them.
Practice mindfulness: Mindfulness is a technique that involves focusing your attention on the present moment without judgment. By practicing mindfulness, you can train your mind to let go of negative thoughts and stay in the present.
Engage in physical activity: Engaging in physical activity such as walking, running or yoga can help clear your mind and reduce stress. Exercise releases endorphins, which are natural mood boosters, and can help you feel more positive.
Distract yourself: When you find yourself ruminating, distract yourself with an activity that you enjoy. This could be anything from reading a book to watching a movie or spending time with friends.
Challenge your thoughts: Challenge negative thoughts by asking yourself if they are really true or if there is another way to look at the situation. This can help you gain perspective and reduce the intensity of your emotions.
Seek support: If you find that your ruminating thoughts are persistent and affecting your daily life, it may be helpful to seek support from a mental health professional. They can help you develop coping strategies and work through any underlying issues that may be contributing to your rumination.
Breaking the cycle of rumination takes time and effort, but with the right strategies and support, it is possible to overcome this pattern of thinking and move forward with a more positive outlook on life."
Yes it does. I am getting honestly tired at defending this position on here, I shouldn't have to explain why it is problematic that a comment or submission is AI generated on a forum that tries to maintain a high standard for discussion.
"High standard" implies more than just efficacy of the content.
Perhaps AI-generated content would be better than human-generated, but I just don't know if I'm ready to read a bunch of articles and perhaps interact with AI chat bots posting comments on hackernews without my knowledge. So hopefully you're human but if not, golden to what is ham semi-you heavily quality them implies of the article though you
I didn't say it didn't matter. I asked whether it mattered. Sorry!
My thinking was even if it is generated I find the comments interesting and engaging more than the article itself - same as with a lot of clearly non ChatGPT HN posts. But I can understand you point, and actually I agree.
I appreciate you changed your mind, but more and more often I read someone, playing the devil's advocate, asking whether it is a big deal if one posts content straight from ChatGPT.
To me it is absurd to even ask, and it is mind-numbingly tiring to have to explain why I would rather talk to humans. The fact that an increasing number of posters don't seem to have a problem with that makes me think this platform's quality of discourse will not last long (and the rest of the internet at large, but today I'll tone down my usual dead-internet doomsday predictions)
What makes you sure that the quality of AI generated content (that has potentially been the result of prompting and editing by a human) is and will be inherently worse than purely human generated content.
Where do you draw the line? Is using translate as a foreigner a problem?
> What makes you sure that the quality of AI generated content (that has potentially been the result of prompting and editing by a human) is and will be inherently worse than purely human generated content.
For the time being, I don't think you can trust AI generated content; quite often, when I asked chatGPT something I had to be sure of, it made mistakes. Take erroneous citations and references: do you think humans fake them the way chatGPT hallucinates them?
The content seems like a good summary of what you’d read elsewhere in pop-psychology blogs. It stimulates comments here which are themselves very interesting. And the internet isn’t going to run out of space just because articles like this are published.
On the other hand, while the internet may have infinite space, HN is limited to 30 articles on the homepage and I have limited time to look at them. A stale autogenerated summary like this is pushing something more interesting out.
At it looks like it might have been ChatGPT, I'm beginning to think that some people will (subconsciously or not) start using a slightly non-standard language and a non-standard way of writing things down, including small gramatical/syntactic mistakes, so that their writings could be more easily and surely identified as non-ChatGPT.
That would be a sort of creole language for the web (not that the web had lacked these types of languages in the past), a language that would be very rapidly modifying so that ChatGPT's training wouldn't be able to "catch up" with it.
Unnecessary. We already write in our own unique style, so if our post is longer than a sentence or so, stylometric tools can prove it was you and not ChatGPT.
I guess they will be the ultimate solution to StackOverflow's fight against ChatGPT too. Even Facebook, Mastodon, everyone'll have to use them.
Either chat GPT or someone generically reiterating what they've seen elsewhere. There wasn't really anything new here, no sources, just a summary of what other people have said.