IM(ns)HO there's no comparison. The original is... original. It's engaging. It uses specific real-world examples and predicts not only outcomes but also the reader's questions.
The generated text is - both objectively and by comparison - bland, repetitive, and lacks any meaningful insight or actionable advice.
I think (and have blogged about - I'll be gauche enough to mention my post, but not so gauche as to link to it here) ChatGPT has a place, and will certainly improve in quality over time. But I also think that trying to get it to "replace" is the wrong goal. The question (I believe) is how we can get ChatGPT and other AI tools can assist or augment.
I noticed it cut out the reference to Southwest Airlines. After reading this I asked, "Why is this a concern?" and "Why is this an important topic." I don't believe AI/ML will replace content creators. I do believe they are great aids to the "Blank" paper problem.
IM(ns)HO there's no comparison. The original is... original. It's engaging. It uses specific real-world examples and predicts not only outcomes but also the reader's questions.
The generated text is - both objectively and by comparison - bland, repetitive, and lacks any meaningful insight or actionable advice.
I think (and have blogged about - I'll be gauche enough to mention my post, but not so gauche as to link to it here) ChatGPT has a place, and will certainly improve in quality over time. But I also think that trying to get it to "replace" is the wrong goal. The question (I believe) is how we can get ChatGPT and other AI tools can assist or augment.
I noticed it cut out the reference to Southwest Airlines. After reading this I asked, "Why is this a concern?" and "Why is this an important topic." I don't believe AI/ML will replace content creators. I do believe they are great aids to the "Blank" paper problem.