[marc]

When you use ChatGPT a lot you start to recognize certain patterns.

In this case, there’s 3 paragraphs of text, but there isn’t 3 paragraphs worth of information.

So what likely happened is that the OP provided limited context to the AI and asked it to write a 3-paragraph post based on it which it happily obliged to.

It feels like GPT-3.5. I think GPT-4 generally does a better job at these types of texts.

[hackernewds]

Now that you said it, I also recognize the pattern. But in a post-chatGPT world is there any solid source of truth that it was - what if OP denies it (which could realistically be true)?

[marc]

Ultimately I don't think it matters whether it was written by ChatGPT or not.

If it conveys the message the OP is trying to communicate in a readable way, that's all that matters.

I think the reason the person above me pointed out it seemed like ChatGPT (as did I), is to inform the OP that it's quite transparent and they shouldn't just take whatever ChatGPT spits out.

Of course it's possible that we're wrong and it was manually written. In that case it's useful to realize we live in a post-ChatGPT world and if something _looks_ AI-generated, that by itself is (unfortunately?) a bad attribute now.