Or maybe I've just become too paranoid.
I'll try to make my next post more concise.
Happy to hear what I can improve for my next post, if you have advice.
These days, I personally find articles with minor grammatical errors more interesting than AI assisted/enhanced/corrected content, because AI generated content often comes off bland and loses the rawness of author's intentions. Just personal opinion of course. :)
About the post content: I found the analysis itself a bit shallow, but I really appreciate this new perspective on doing review-first analysis without even trying the app first, since it's something I've never considered
Thanks for sharing!
Lots of words to say nothing of substance.
If it reads like a bad high school essay - it's ChatGPT!
All ChatGPT does better is produce blogspam with more consistent grammar, and over a wider range of topics than any single person could quickly understand.
The useful part about the "If it's vapid then it's probably an LLM" test is that even if it ISN'T an LLM, it's still vapid and bad in the same way, and basically needs the same solution:
Folks, if you want to write, take writing classes somewhere.
I'm new to writing about marketing, so I hope to improve as I go and offer better insight with more practice.
So the other way around...
For context, phrases like "We'll take a look at" are what typically lead me to lean towards AI being part of the mix. There are other things about the article that did that too but they may be related to you working in a non-native language.
So perhaps more editing was needed, to distill the message.
If English is not your first language then it’s pretty damn good in that context :)
