Oh no, I failed a purity test by not being inclusive enough, but also it simultaneously was not edgy nor controversial enough at the same time!
I am autistic. I am speaking both from personal experience and also personally knowing a bunch of other autists I went to university with.
So uh, misfire on the inclusivity purity test there, unless you’re gonna call me a self hating autist, in which case, ok lol.
You’re really gonna tell the autistic guy that he sounds like a robot, a computer model of text generation, you know kind of a massively rude thing to do to an autist, who gets to hear that dehumanizing shit their whole life… you’re gonna tell me that and then also critique me for not being inclusive enough, to autistic people.
Amazing.
This doesn’t ‘need’ Queen, it is meant to be my authentic personal opinion, I do not identify as or with Queen, or use Queen mannerisms or phrasings. Took me a long time to learn that anyone that demands I mask for them isn’t someone worth much of my time.
Jumping from doing … some incredibly vague, unspecified, but nonetheless structural writing critique… directly into a totally subjective, personal preferences critique of the content of the writing, seemingly without even realizing you’ve done this…
Pretty much means you either aren’t well versed in English, or you’re intentionally conflating the two in bad faith.
I dare you to find any ChatGPT or similar LLM that naturally outputs written content that simply has as many … as I arguably overuse, consistently writes compound sentences with as many clauses as I use routinely, not to mention suggests intonation the way I do with bold italics.
Uh, um, in conclusion, in this essay I have shown that you have no clue what you’re talking about.
My first statement was sarcasm. If you learned to write in university you would learn to write in an academic style. Since most people write more in university than the rest of their career there’s simply more writing with that style available. Since that’s all available through journals or more insidious sources it’s likely training fodder for AIs. Therefore someone’s writing being misinterpreted for AI likely just means they’ve used some academic style. I only commented on it because you brought it up in your first comment. I believe I’m in agreement with your original sentiment that it’s a silly notion(?)
The “E:” means “edit” since I edited my post to change the wording from worse language to something i felt was more appropriate.
The “needs more Queen” refers how OP uses the members of the band as examples to make their point. I’m intending to contrast that with your write-up which does not share a similar pop-culture example approach but hinges instead on your personal experience. You said your comment could be a good start to the essay requested in the replies in the image. That is what i was meaning to respond to with this critique. I believe the replies in the image wanted more pop-culture based references.
None of it’s a purity test and the last part is just my opinion.
Oh no, I failed a purity test by not being inclusive enough, but also it simultaneously was not edgy nor controversial enough at the same time!
I am autistic. I am speaking both from personal experience and also personally knowing a bunch of other autists I went to university with.
So uh, misfire on the inclusivity purity test there, unless you’re gonna call me a self hating autist, in which case, ok lol.
You’re really gonna tell the autistic guy that he sounds like a robot, a computer model of text generation, you know kind of a massively rude thing to do to an autist, who gets to hear that dehumanizing shit their whole life… you’re gonna tell me that and then also critique me for not being inclusive enough, to autistic people.
Amazing.
This doesn’t ‘need’ Queen, it is meant to be my authentic personal opinion, I do not identify as or with Queen, or use Queen mannerisms or phrasings. Took me a long time to learn that anyone that demands I mask for them isn’t someone worth much of my time.
Jumping from doing … some incredibly vague, unspecified, but nonetheless structural writing critique… directly into a totally subjective, personal preferences critique of the content of the writing, seemingly without even realizing you’ve done this…
Pretty much means you either aren’t well versed in English, or you’re intentionally conflating the two in bad faith.
I dare you to find any ChatGPT or similar LLM that naturally outputs written content that simply has as many … as I arguably overuse, consistently writes compound sentences with as many clauses as I use routinely, not to mention suggests intonation the way I do with bold italics.
Uh, um, in conclusion, in this essay I have shown that you have no clue what you’re talking about.
EDIT: Oh no, did HR send you?
My first statement was sarcasm. If you learned to write in university you would learn to write in an academic style. Since most people write more in university than the rest of their career there’s simply more writing with that style available. Since that’s all available through journals or more insidious sources it’s likely training fodder for AIs. Therefore someone’s writing being misinterpreted for AI likely just means they’ve used some academic style. I only commented on it because you brought it up in your first comment. I believe I’m in agreement with your original sentiment that it’s a silly notion(?)
The “E:” means “edit” since I edited my post to change the wording from worse language to something i felt was more appropriate.
The “needs more Queen” refers how OP uses the members of the band as examples to make their point. I’m intending to contrast that with your write-up which does not share a similar pop-culture example approach but hinges instead on your personal experience. You said your comment could be a good start to the essay requested in the replies in the image. That is what i was meaning to respond to with this critique. I believe the replies in the image wanted more pop-culture based references.
None of it’s a purity test and the last part is just my opinion.