> When ChatGPT came out, many people deemed it a perfect plagiarism tool. “AI seems almost built for cheating,” Ethan Mollick, an A.I. commentator, wrote in his book
It's ironic that this article complains about GPT-generated slop, but Ethan Mollick is a Associate Professor at Wharton, not any "generic A.I. commentator."
What authors like this fail to realize that they often produce equally-generic slop as ChatGPT.
Essays are like babies: you're proud of your own, but others' (including ChatGPT's) are gross.
But aside from that this article is far far better than anything I have seen produced by AI? Is this just standard HN reflexive anti-middlebrow sentiment because we don't like the new yorker's style? My grandfather didn't like it either but it outlasted him and will probably outlast us as well.
But again, AI doesn't really hallucinate spite, but that's probably what this AI commentator from the New Yorker feels?