[armchairhacker]

I'd imagine one metric is "bland subject matter with impeccable grammar"

Like, how you can write so well, but not know how to imbue any of the character's personality into the writing?

[StrictDabbler]

I feel as though I am being personally attacked because your description resonates with aspects of my self-image with which I am uncomfortable.

However, I understand that you do not know me and that you are describing a hypothetical person who writes carefully about bland subjects.

Overall, I am sure that you are correct and that this is one metric used for identifying AI-generated content.

***

Seriously, though, I feel like the words "however" and "overall" will be tainted for years.

[nonfamous]

I got accused (more as a joke, but c’mon) by my boss the other day for using GPT to write a document. His justification: the grammar and spelling was too good. I had no idea that good writing was now a “tell” for generated content for some. I I just write good, honest!

[tjpnz]

I could understand grammar to some extent, but how do you mess up spelling when you have spellcheck?

[jcranmer]

Its grate too no eye spiel write, four baht worse git whey read line unto hem.

(It's great to know I spell right, for bad words get a red line under them).

[denton-scratch]

But how do you automate that?

[flangola7]

That could catch ChatGPT but not LLaMA, which adopts personas almost too well.

[mstolpm]

That would not necessarily ban AI generated content, only bad storytelling.