[vintagedave]

I suppose in the AI era, we need to assume AI. For me, I feel like 'attempted Pratchettisms' might well be the result of a human writing. It's hard to be as good as Pratchett but understandable to write a post like this trying to be.

That is, with ambiguity, I try to assume the best. I expect that is somewhat naïve.

I genuinely read (and still do) the blog as a human voice. I don't think writing about AI is enough to assume that a blog is authored by AI.

[neogodless]

If the AI-generated content doesn't push out all the good stuff, the absolute flood of accusing everything written everywhere as being written by AI will.

[mpalmer]

"a kind of paper that already looks guilty"

[onraglanroad]

I like that line. The kind of cheap floozy paper that suggests something bad has been written on it, even when it's perfectly innocent.

[npinsker]

That’s not looking “guilty” though. Paper cannot be guilty, only humans.

[scubbo]

There are plenty of valid criticisms of the article, but this isn't one of them. I'd be embarrassed to call myself a fan of Pratchett while failing to recognize dramatic anthropomorphization (indeed, Pratchett was where teenaged-me first learned the word)

[mpalmer]

It's not a matter of not recognizing it. It's just nonsensical, it's completely free of wit or cleverness. Speaking as an enthusiastic fan of the man's actual writing.

[scubbo]

So paper _can_ look guilty, you just don't like this particular usage of rhetoric? Which is it?

[vintagedave]

Of course it can. That's writing.