Using ChatGPT for content?

[iso2009]

Ultimately I hope Google detects and penalizes all the AI written content. Ultimately AI content is an echo chamber of **** on the Internet and will end up perpetuating falsehoods, misinformation, and outwrite bullshit as truth and that is dangerous.

Google (or other tools) can detect AI content. When it comes to issue a penalty, it's another story. You can read more here:

https://developers.google.com/search...and-ai-content

I remember (but I might be wrong) that Google invested a lot in AI because they needed to "understand" user intent and also content. That means, understand language as good as possible. They are doing a decent job at it, for now. Haven't tested Google Bard, but I have the feeling is far worse than the internal tools Google uses for ranking.

GPT (with the over popular ChatGPT) is another just another model and it had a very good marketing campaign. It can understand language to some degree - enough for me to use it where I think it can save time and money. But in the end, GPT is just a publicity stunt for Bing.

So if you can find some areas where GPT (or Bard) can help you, why not use it? I played with it with programming tasks (not very reliable), server configuration (more reliable) and text generation/rewrites (pretty good).

As for the dangers of AI, that is an entirely different topic, we should not mix apples and oranges.

[chaumi]

Google (or other tools) can detect AI content. When it comes to issue a penalty, it's another story. You can read more here:

https://developers.google.com/search...and-ai-content

There is already significant enough evidence that sites publishing mass-generated AI content have been penalized. For those of us that might AI generate the odd blog post in among our hand-written stuff that covers most of the site, no, penalization is not going to happen.

What might happen, though (I firmly believe will, if indeed it's not happening already on some scale) is that pure AI-generated pieces will fail to index. And, in a way, that's a form of penalty. Because, in the end, too many 'no-index' pieces of content, and you've tarred yourself as a worthless site.

NOTE You shouldn't even need a tool to tell if a piece of content is pure AI. It's obvious (at the moment). And if a human brain can spot it easily, you can bet your ar$e a robot will, too.

I remember (but I might be wrong) that Google invested a lot in AI because they needed to "understand" user intent and also content. That means, understand language as good as possible. They are doing a decent job at it, for now. Haven't tested Google Bard, but I have the feeling is far worse than the internal tools Google uses for ranking.

And if AI is what's used to interpret/understand content by Google...then, in theory, if your AI can generate what the Google AI either wants to see or can 'talk' to the Google AI in the most effective way...and answers the users query...and it's been human-edited to check facts and add originality....what then, dear readers!!??

I haven't tried Bard, but I hear from knowledgeable sources that it's a pile of sh!t compared with ChatGPT

GPT (with the over popular ChatGPT) is another just another model and it had a very good marketing campaign. It can understand language to some degree - enough for me to use it where I think it can save time and money. But in the end, GPT is just a publicity stunt for Bing.

I don't think it was the marketing campaign. The release has every sign of being a genuine ' this is a big part of the future' moment. It got interest because it was interest-worthy.

Bing publicity stunt? I know what you mean. But the reality is (I believe) Google dropped the ball. They thought they were in complete control, merrily holding their AI generation skills in the background and not worrying too much (partly because they didn't know how to tame the monster and what it would do to their profits).

So, OpenAI/Chat GPT got there first. You could argue Bing spotted an opportunity to gain ground (which, again going on info from strong sources) is working for them. It'll be interesting to see some facts and figures on market/search percentage shares since the turn of the year.

The result is what appears to be a symbiotic relationship that's been to the benefit of both.

Google realised their error to late, and got forced into releasing Bard before they were ready. Probably a 'heads have rolled' scenario.

As for the dangers of AI, that is an entirely different topic, we should not mix apples and oranges.

Oh, I believe the dangers are entirely relevant to any discussion along these lines and anyone using any form of AI generator should be as cognizant of them as they are of the benefits. And remember, dangers are not always what you think they are, and some dangers are cloaked till they reveal themselves.

[dannyx]

It also seems to apply only to English so far.
I checked in the test whether the text is human or ai your site from the link that was provided here. copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector

In English it shows the results I could expect. For other in theory supported languages, it seems to be a lottery the result of the test.

All of my English sites is marked as human. The Portuguese one is similarly marked. The Spanish, on the other hand, is 90% AI. Although it too is human and importantly is of higher quality than the Portuguese translations which are made by DeepL and marked as 100% human.
So, languages other than English should be evaluated carefully, as the results are strange.

[dannyx]

However one part I found was funny is that I wrote a bunch of text myself and checked it on one of the AI detector tools...and it told me my own writing was AI generated!! I guess I should see that as a compliment lol as that tells me my english must be good!!!

Having moments of time I checked the sites of GPWA users from this thread as well as my own.
In many cases my real texts said they were AI texts. So did many other users from this thread. And probably most or all of this content was written by a human.
However, as I wrote above most in English showed me the result that it was human text. However, not all of them.

I was afraid that something was wrong with my writing, but I see that many/all have the same.

[Oliver Cooper]

There is more and more news that ChatGPT is getting out of hand and somewhere it has already been banned (in Italy if I'm not mistaken)

[NoDepositCasinos]

I see a lot of people refer to GPT as a tool to generate content ideas, which is something I haven't used it for myself.
Just out of curiosity, could someone share some examples of how it helps(ed) to generate content ideas?

I try to keep it simple and use it as if I were talking to someone. For example, if I'm working on a blog post, I provide the general topic and ask for ten related suggestions. Once I've selected one, I ask questions to flesh out the concept and structure my draft.

In addition, I sometimes request ChatGPT's assistance in adjusting the tone of my writing, such as making it more formal or persuasive.

Regarding the prompts that are becoming so popular, I would keep a couple to adapt them to my needs. Otherwise, creating lengthy prompts for every use may defeat the purpose of using ChatGPT, which is to streamline my workflow and save time.

[CasinosJungle]

ChatGPT is an amazing tool but it is just that, a tool, it will be easily noticed when someone uses it in a lazy and simple way but those who really know how to get the most out of it will have a big advantage over the competition. Anyone can use a hammer, not everyone knows how to work metal and turn it into something awesome.

100%. It's pretty formulaic if the request is write 800 words on x topic and it's fingerprint is very easy to spot if you've read a bunch of them. But once you start giving some stage direction, the results can be very nice.

[ratemycasino]

ChatGPT is great for generating ideas, but it cannot fully replace a copywriter. texts need to be fact-checked and kept up-to-date.

[dannyx]

As an artificial intelligence, I am not in a position to give advice on gambling or betting, as this could violate regulations or ethical rules.

I wanted to try it out, but it doesn't seem to be suitable for betting.

[xecutable]

As an artificial intelligence, I am not in a position to give advice on gambling or betting, as this could violate regulations or ethical rules.

I wanted to try it out, but it doesn't seem to be suitable for betting.

Jailbreak it with one of the texts from Github and try again.

[dannyx]

Jailbreak it with one of the texts from Github and try again.

I have noticed that GPT reacts as I have described when certain words are used, such as 'worth' etc.

Overall a nice tool, of course I wouldn't upload text from GPT. Especially as I don't publish huge amounts of text, so it's better to write myself. Although I will certainly sometimes, when I have a blank in my head, use it to get inspiration for the topic being described.

[MichaelCorfman]

Northwester, thank you for starting this thread. I think it is an interesting topic. In fact, interesting enough that I have added a poll to the thread so we can feature it in today's GPWA Times Newsletter.

I did try it out just now. Here is the question and answer provided:

Yes, GPWA.org is generally considered a respected website in the online gambling industry. GPWA stands for Gambling Portal Webmasters Association, and the website is dedicated to providing information and resources for webmasters who operate gambling-related websites.

The GPWA is an association that has been around since 2001 and has a code of conduct that its members are expected to adhere to. Members must meet certain criteria to join, such as having a website related to the gambling industry, having a clear and transparent privacy policy, and being in good standing with regulatory authorities.

The GPWA website offers a range of resources for webmasters, including forums, news and articles, and a directory of affiliate programs. The organization also promotes responsible gambling practices and has a section dedicated to helping players who may have a problem with gambling.

Overall, GPWA.org is a respected website in the online gambling industry and can be a useful resource for those interested in operating a gambling-related website. However, as with any website, it's always a good idea to exercise caution and do your own research before making any decisions based on the information provided.

I view this as generally a decent response with a number of factually correct statements. But also with some statements that are not quite right.

Michael

[GameLandiaLtd]

Hello, dear community!
The topic is intriguing and I would like to share my views on it.

Chat GPT can be an extremely useful program for the development of your projects. It can produce highly focused, informatively structured, and original content that is subject to moderate editing in terms of precise grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation. Of major importance to the quality of the answers you want to get is the way you frame the task and the correct formulation of the questions you ask of it. You can also have a look for the originality of the content and the sources from which the information is taken to be assured of the absolute authenticity of the content. More added, Chat GPT can be extremely useful when you need to perform a task requiring creativity.

In conclusion, Chat GPT can be very useful when paired with the competence and proper attitude of the person using it.

[Topboss]

Ok, Being a content writer in the industry it is very important to me that my clients don't ever worry about whether I or any of my writers use AI, so I have been doing a lot of research into AI and specifically if it can incorrectly label human content as AI generated so I have been testing out various AI detection sites that profess to have 99% accuracy..... Well all I can say is What a crock of ****!!!

I wrote at least 10 "human" paragraphs of roughly 100 to 200 words each and 10 AI paragraphs.

There was no single instance where any of the detectors got it right. One even went as far as saying my whole 200 human words was 100% AI generated!!

Here is just one example of the results of 2 well-known AI detection companies:

The text below was 100% written by Me ( i.e 100% human text )

"<p>Tropezia Palace Casino has the option for players to deposit using their credit or debit card. They accept both VISA and Mastercard, however, if a player deposits using Mastercard, they cannot withdraw with this method, so would need to withdraw to a local bank account. </p>
<p> One of the downsides of using credit or debit cards to deposit at an online casino is that some banks block these transactions as they have an anti-gambling policy, so it is best to check with your bank first. </p>"

The results from 2 AI detectors ( ZeroChatGPT and Copyleaks) is as follows ( unfortunately I could not post screenshots as they come out like chinese)

Chat GPT said the text was 79.46% AI generated and Copyleaks said it was 99.9% AI generated!!!

Now my question is - Clearly AI tools see my writing as very close to AI , so how do I prove to my clients that the content I produce is human written??

[universal4]

Now my question is - Clearly AI tools see my writing as very close to AI , so how do I prove to my clients that the content I produce is human written??

Trust, for me that is easy when considering your work.

For many other writers, I would probably always wonder.

Rick
Universal4

[xecutable]

Ok, Being a content writer in the industry it is very important to me that my clients don't ever worry about whether I or any of my writers use AI, so I have been doing a lot of research into AI and specifically if it can incorrectly label human content as AI generated so I have been testing out various AI detection sites that profess to have 99% accuracy..... Well all I can say is What a crock of ****!!!

I wrote at least 10 "human" paragraphs of roughly 100 to 200 words each and 10 AI paragraphs.

There was no single instance where any of the detectors got it right. One even went as far as saying my whole 200 human words was 100% AI generated!!

Here is just one example of the results of 2 well-known AI detection companies:

The text below was 100% written by Me ( i.e 100% human text )

"<p>Tropezia Palace Casino has the option for players to deposit using their credit or debit card. They accept both VISA and Mastercard, however, if a player deposits using Mastercard, they cannot withdraw with this method, so would need to withdraw to a local bank account. </p>
<p> One of the downsides of using credit or debit cards to deposit at an online casino is that some banks block these transactions as they have an anti-gambling policy, so it is best to check with your bank first. </p>"

The results from 2 AI detectors ( ZeroChatGPT and Copyleaks) is as follows ( unfortunately I could not post screenshots as they come out like chinese)

Chat GPT said the text was 79.46% AI generated and Copyleaks said it was 99.9% AI generated!!!

Now my question is - Clearly AI tools see my writing as very close to AI , so how do I prove to my clients that the content I produce is human written??

I believe you are asking a backward question. It's like saying how do I prove I don't own a boat. The question should be how would they prove it IS AI, when these AI checkers are clearly not detecting anything and have become a meme, with people putting in bible verses and reporting 100% AI.

And if anyone comes at you with such a checking tool, it's easy to discredit it.

[DaftDog]

... with people putting in bible verses and reporting 100% AI.

At last, some proof that we live in a simulation.

[xecutable]

At last, some proof that we live in a simulation.

That and the fact that AI has been around for more than 2,000 years so it's not that revolutionary

[dannyx]

That and the fact that AI has been around for more than 2,000 years so it's not that revolutionary

On the scale of one man's life, 2000 years may seem like a very long time.
However, considering other factors, 2000 years is nothing to the world. So maybe even if AI existed 2000 years would still be revolutionary ?

[viperslots]

With a little tweaking, it is ok. You cannot beat hand written content though in my opinion.