I skimmed this criticism of Pokimane and got to the fourth paragraph before I realized I was reading a chatGPT output. The emdashes are the most obvious giveaway, but the constant restatements and trouble with building conclusions are also clear tells, if a little more subtle.
In this case I agree overall with the post, but GPT (or grok - they all write the same) argued the point for the poster and did a mediocre job overall, especially for a post with 3M views. More troubling is that the guy insists he wrote the whole thing himself, which has apparently fooled thousands of people. He's far from the only one, either. It's not uncommon to see people using AI to respond to an argument.
I don't know where this is going. AI is a powerful force multiplier, but if more and more people outsource their writing to it, we will eventually get to a soft version of dead internet theory where real people are volleying back and forth with GPT responses but don't fully understand what they're saying to each other. Scammers and grifters will almost be indistinguishable, superficially. I'm surprised the Indian contingent hasn't figured out how to use GPT outputs en masse, but I'm sure it's coming.
The only hope is that people will develop enough AI literacy to recognize automated content. We'll see if this happens.
I notice that a lot of new videos (on youtube) have an AI voice-over with AI written text.
They AI-text seems interesting, but the text has almost no actual information. A lot of it is just to fill up the time of the video.
Due to Youtube's algorithm, a longer video gives more income. So the creators just artificially lengthen the videos to get more money.
The prompt that they give to the AI is probably the actual information in a few lines, which the AI translates to a story of 15 minutes. I suspect that some AI also adds stock-footage to the video as filler.