Fascinating. Also impressive rawness, and it doesn't even seem like she passed it thru Chatgpt. It's insane that my first inclination is to detect those telltale signs in a blog post, and here I found none.
back
5 comments
Nobody who likes writing would use ChatGPT to write. First of all, it takes the fun out of it, and second of all, its writing is clinical and corporate. I'm writing to express myself, how would I accomplish that through someone else?
I don't think trying to detect ChatGPT is a good use of time. Either the writing is good, or it's not.
It doesn't take any more time than reading it. Chatgpt writing is dogshit and if I see signs then I know probably the whole work is polluted.
I feel absolutely confident that Charlie XCX would never use generative AI in any form. And this sentence is lovely;
"...let some random person you’ve just met in the bathroom try on the necklace around your neck that is equivalent to the heart of the ocean"
Like you I always look for signs of AI in writing I see online, and it's incredibly disappointing how often it's there. There's no personality, no charm, nothing unique - just the same flawless grammar and overuse of cliche. This piece is filled with the quality of humanity that we once took for granted. This is what we are losing.
not all of us, just most of us, apparently
Yeah there's a 'delve' there but it almost feels it was put in as a taunt.
I never quite understood this “tell”. I use the word all the time. As do a lot of the people I have know. Written and spoken.
Is this maybe an American thing? Ie it’s just not used much there?
"Delve" was one of the words whose usage spiked most dramatically after the launch of ChatGPT, relative to its usage pre-ChatGPT.
I used to wear a mask when I was sick but still had to be around people. It was just normal life. Then after COVID it became a political statement. Now if I did that people would assume I’m trying to say something.
I’ve always liked the American flag. I have a little pin on my jacket. People assume something by its presence.
That’s life. Delve is now an LLMism.
Charli is a half-british half-Indian. It could be legitimate
Delve was a word I used before generative AI and it's a word I'll continue using into the future. I will not let people's perceived use of AI stop me from writing what I want to write.
She may be of the final generation of real creatives who aren't at a disadvantage relative to those who take the path of least resistance and put out slop. The current/next generation of the audience may look at manually created art as a curiosity, the way most of us think about listening to vinyl.
I'm less sure and perhaps more optimistic.
Spottily has clearly identified a paying market for "incidental" music, something that people will play just to fill in as background noise while not caring about it. But it relies on a huge number of people who're prepared to pay a vanishingly small amount for it, or even to put up with ads to have it play for free.
But that's not "the audience" that all "creatives" are seeking or writing for. At least some of them are writing for the sort of person who actively seeks out and values "manually created art". People like me. People who'll not only go and listen to an artist's back catalog after enjoying hearing a previously unknown artist, and who'll buy the music that they love (including buying the vinyl even though they have access via streaming and paid downloads as well). People who'll keep an eye open for tours, and who'll buy concert tickets and encourage friends to do so as well.
That will probably never generate Taylor Swift or Rhiannon style careers or income, but I think "1000 true fans" is a valid today as it was almost 20 years ago when it was written:
https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/
Anybody "putting out slop" using GenAI in their art is fooling themselves if they think it's ever going to be possible to become truly rich and famous that way. If there's money to be made from AI slop music, it'll be raked in by streaming services and AI companies who can produce a million tracks a day and A/B test then on streaming services with a billion listeners. And _maybe_ there'll be a very few specialist AI music production companies, someone with a finely tuned AI and extremely skilled prompters - and with enough skill and talent to recognise when the AI output is going to be popular enough to be worth releasing. Someone like Stock Aitken Waterman used to be back in the 80s. But those production companies are directly in the targets of enshittification by the AI companies (the same as every company in any industry that becomes dependent on someone else's GenAI).
> and it doesn't even seem like she passed it thru Chatgpt
Oh my god, can we stop with the obsession of whether something has been chatgpt-ified? I like to know when things are true, or when they are good. I couldn't care less if they are chatgpt-y.
I think people disliked being fooled. Something seems good and true, and then you realize it was ChatGPT, and you realize it’s all fake. The connection you were forming with the author is gone (because they phoned it in) and the sense of truth is gone (because who knows what was hallucinated).
People like authenticity. ChatGPT ain’t it.
Another thing that isn't authentic is anything said in public by a celebrity - or worse - the feelings they show in their work. Yet people still lap it up. I think people enjoy being fooled into believing something is authentic in some cases but not others. Not sure what distinguishes them though.