Right?! I agree with the vibe, but I was hoping for more detail, a link to the study, etc… But the article just ends with this incredibly vague statement and no sources:
“This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies.”
When I see this type of thing my default assumption is the actual source is ChatGPT. The article is attributed to “the editorial team” but that link just goes to a list of other articles and credits no-one. But somehow they’re putting out like 20 a day, all of them similarly lacking sources or authors, and only linking to other articles on the same site. Plus the writing style is full of AI-isms.
Right?! I agree with the vibe, but I was hoping for more detail, a link to the study, etc… But the article just ends with this incredibly vague statement and no sources:
“This article is based on verified sources and supported by editorial technologies.”
🤷♂️
When I see this type of thing my default assumption is the actual source is ChatGPT. The article is attributed to “the editorial team” but that link just goes to a list of other articles and credits no-one. But somehow they’re putting out like 20 a day, all of them similarly lacking sources or authors, and only linking to other articles on the same site. Plus the writing style is full of AI-isms.