Hey, I'm A STEM Girlie And I Agree That ChatGPT Is Actually Terrible At (good) Writing. (And Honestly,

Hey, I'm a STEM girlie and I agree that ChatGPT is actually terrible at (good) writing. (And honestly, I believe it will erode literacy rates.)

I am not familiar with the process of copywriting. You got me there, OP.

Anyway.

First off, the purpose of GPT models (which ChatGPT is based on) is to produce naturalistic/human-like language. It is intended to be good at being fluent in English. This is demonstrated by the difficulty of determining whether or not a piece of writing was done by a human or ChatGPT, and is why talking to the weird little chatbot is fun. Really, that's the intended use.

However, it is not a logic model, and therefore is, unsurprisingly, terrible at critical analysis of text (themes, reasoning outside the text, et cetera). I tried pasting in some particularly difficult CARS MCAT passages (shout out to everyone else in this year's U.S. med school cycle) to give it a challenge, which I got wrong, and ChatGPT got them wrong too. Quite confidently, I may add.

When asked to analyze literature, ChatGPT offers up, unsurprisingly, a very stale keyhole essay that sounds as if it's never read the piece it's analyzing. Now, mind you, this is naturalistic (the expected response to 'write me an essay on X' is to fulfill the request) but that doesn't assure the quality of the writing. Further reading on this point: the Chinese room argument in philosophy/AI and why theory of mind is non-trivial.

ChatGPT is rarely (if ever) insightful, nor can it present unique and thoughtful viewpoints. Nor does its writing have a distinct voice, instead a corporate-sounding melangé of the data it was trained on.

Its flaws really, really aren't surprising. Even on a purely structural level, brains and computers are very different in ways that are highly relevant to writing ability (memory is transformational rather than a simple look-up, distributed circuits, etc).

I have to say this somewhere. It's killing me.

The fact that so many STEM bros think ChatGPT is a good writer demonstrates the need for more comprehensive literature education. Beyond the fact that it confidently writes essays that are factually incorrect, it is just not a substitute for someone who is actually a good lyricist or poet or essayist.

Listening to STEM people say "this could replace copy writers" just proves that they don't actually read copy.

Reblog if you’re over 20 and still read/write fan fiction.

I’m curious!

pour a little on the ground for "REAL libraries check for quality" dude who has never stepped foot in a library.

Just saw a tweet like "REAL libraries check for quality!" as some kinda gotcha at AO3?? But I'm a librarian, so... heads up that "quality checks," AKA "weeding" or "pulling," means looking for damaged books or ones that haven't circulated in a few years to clear up shelf space. We don't Quality Check for if the library books have nontoxic romance or good grammar. :U I assure you every library in your area has absolute ABOMINATIONS of bad storytelling as well as your favorite pop lit.

Headcanon that Hogwarts wizards are actually worse than average, but Hogwarts as a school is world class at developing generational talents, your Dumbledore's and Tom Riddle's (and I'd argue Snape since he's the Potions and Occlumency GOAT, but no one knows about that) which carry their reputation as a school on their backs.

Whenever foreign wizards meet Hogwarts grads they're underwhelmed, but Dumbledore is so above the average or even exceptional wizard he might as well be an alien, and anyone who meets him (or Tom) finds themselves incredibly unnerved. So they end up thinking that Hogwarts really is the best school itw after all, even though the median wizard is slightly worse than the global average.

Here is a belly dancer Tom thanks to the TROR kekek

i can't believe you're "supposed" to make eye contact with people. like be serious i don't need to see your soul like that