[OP, sorry for the harsh words. They’re directed at the text and not towards you.]
To be blunt this “essay” is a pile of shit. It’s so bad, but so bad, that I gave up dissecting it. Instead I’ll list the idiocies = fallacies = disingenuous arguments it’s built upon:
Nirvana idiocy = fallacy: “unless its perfect than its useless lol lmao”.
Begging the question: being trained on [ipsis ungulis] “the entire corpus of human output” with enough money to throw at it won’t “magically” make AI output indistinguishable from human generated content.
Straw man: if the author is going to distort the GPTZero FAQ, to double down on the nirvana idiocy, they should at least clip the quote further, to not make it so obvious. There’s a bloody reason the FAQ is focusing on punishment.
Note nirvana fallacy is so prevalent, but so prevalent, that once you try to remove it the text puffs into nothing. The whole text is built upon it. (I’m glad people developing anti-spam systems don’t take the same idiocy seriously, otherwise our mailboxes would be even worse than they already are.)
[OP, sorry for the harsh words. They’re directed at the text and not towards you.]
To be blunt this “essay” is a pile of shit. It’s so bad, but so bad, that I gave up dissecting it. Instead I’ll list the idiocies = fallacies = disingenuous arguments it’s built upon:
Note nirvana fallacy is so prevalent, but so prevalent, that once you try to remove it the text puffs into nothing. The whole text is built upon it. (I’m glad people developing anti-spam systems don’t take the same idiocy seriously, otherwise our mailboxes would be even worse than they already are.)