I was surprised at the
responses to my question about taking a storygame through the last mile, and wanted to start a new topic.
I do not use gen AI for writing (nor did I for that summary), but I've obviously played around with it quite a lot and can spot AI stuff.
I'm curious, what gives you the impression that the linked summary (or any summary/writing) is AI generated?
Rereading the summary I posted, I wonder:
* was it the length?
* is the subject matter (technological singularity, uncontrollable AI) such a known trope that explanation isn't needed?
* is it the "enticing" tone I used?
* there were some (embarassing) typos and sloppy writing; although AI won't make those mistakes, maybe that made it seem low-quality?
* is it a "first-time poster" bias, and there's been a glut of AI-dribble?
I looked at a number of summaries on top-rated stories:
* with the exception of EndMaster's, most use an enticing tone discussing the story
* several discuss mechanics,
* most are shorter
My overall take is that my summary seemed AI because of the length, sloppy writing, and that it "tries too hard" to entice the reader to try it.
In retrospect, I should have finalized the summary before posting it. I just wanted to give some context as to what I was working on. 🙄