Thanks for the effort you went to. If my posts come across as too articulate or structured, I’ll take it as a compliment. That’s usually just what happens when you actually take the time to research and care about what you’re writing.
There’s a big difference between sounding informed and sounding robotic. The issue with most AI content isn’t that it’s smart - it’s that it lacks nuance and conviction. Most people can tell when something’s written by someone who actually understands the subject.
I’ve studied writing, spent a lot of time reading investor letters and research papers and I don’t post unless I feel properly informed. If that trips some software, maybe that says more about the tool than the post. I’ll always take “sounds like AI” over “reads like it was thrown together with no thought”.
Also worth noting - you singled out the only one of my posts that even registered a borderline result. That seems less like curiosity and more like an effort to undermine. Either way, if you’re going to question someone’s credibility, it helps to understand the tools you’re using.
Here’s one of many articles pointing out the flaws in the detector you used:
- GPTZero - Wikipedia
Appreciate the chat.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
