[malfist]

This article is rife with unedited llm signals. This makes me question their methodology here. I want you believe what they found, but I don't trust this analysis. If they were this sloppy with the write up, how sloppy were they with the science?

[jp8585]

We have a full page on the methodology we used! Let me know if you’d like access to the dataset we created for this. The aim was not to be scientific but to flush out some deeper meanings from these interviews that typical nlp techniques struggle with. Ps: Of course we used llm tools as a writing aid, I’d be willing to bet those “signals” probably come from my own writing though and my appreciation of Tom Wolfe. I’ve been told it can be “sloppy” sometimes.

[dcre]

The bits that stand out to me are the non-question questions.

“Their headline?”

“Scientists are thriving. The workforce is managing. But creatives?”

“The top trust destroyer?”

[userbinator]

We have a full page on the methodology we used! Let me know if you’d like access to the dataset we created for this.

I'm not sure if you realise that those two sentences sound like 100% verbatim LLM output, or am I actually replying to a bot and not a human.

[jp8585]

Now you are just being paranoid, lol. You have me wondering now why am I writing like an llm. (strawberry has 3 rs). Are you a bot? Shoot me an email (that we listed on the page) and let's have a zoom call

[userbinator]

<some sentence ending in an exclamation point!> <"let me know if you'd like"...> is a stereotypical ChatGPT response.