Recently, I read an article written by Dan Kay about how ChatGPT will kill “content” but not “writing.”

(I've linked to the exact article at the bottom of this page.)

I thought that the distinction between the two was an interesting point. 

A valid point.

But, I was curious as to what ChatGPT would think of an article like that and what kind of input it had regarding what the author said about it.

Previously, I'd asked ChatGPT to write a song about Content SEO. The result was rather entertaining, so I thought this would be another interesting topic to get the famous AI's input on.

Here is ChatGPT’s unfiltered and unedited response.

CHATGPT RESPONSE TO ARTICLE

As an AI language model, I do not have emotions, but I can provide an analysis of the article.

The article acknowledges that the rise of AI language models will likely lead to the replacement of human content writers and a flood of robot-written content on the internet.

This article expresses the author’s strong negative feelings towards the term “content” and its implication in the world of writing.

A SOULLESS, ARTLESS WORD OF SUBSERVIENCE

The author sees the term “content” as a generic, soulless, and artless word that describes the vast majority of online writing, including social media posts, SEO pages, and even Medium articles.

The author believes that content is subservient to the needs of its form and does not offer any thesis or attempt to change the reader.

The author argues that AI technology, such as generative language models like ChatGPT, will replace human content writers.

HUMAN DESIRES vs ROBOTS DOMINATION

While such technology is already being used by smart content writers, the author predicts that the vast majority of online writing will be generated by robots.

The author does not think that this will significantly impact readers’ experiences, given that most online content is already quite generic and predictable.

However, the author suggests that true art and writing will not disappear, as these things involve making unexpected connections and generating meaning beyond the reach of AI technology.

They suggest that the human heart yearns for art and that writers with unique experiences and something to say will continue to write despite the prevalence of generic “content.”

The author surmises that writers with unique experiences and something to say will continue to write, even though they may be drowned out by the robotic chorus of AI-generated content.

CONTENT vs ART

In general, the article highlights the tension between “content” and “art” in the digital age and the potential impact of AI-generated content on the internet.

Overall, the article presents an interesting perspective on the use of AI language models in writing and how it may affect the quality and quantity of content on the internet.

IN SUMMARY

In general, (I agree) “Content” and “writing” can be considered as related but distinct concepts. 

Writing refers to the act of creating written language with the intention of communicating ideas or expressing thoughts, feelings, or experiences. It is a creative process that involves the use of language, syntax, grammar, and style to convey meaning effectively. Writing can be considered as an art form because it requires creativity, skill, and practice to produce high-quality written works.

On the other hand, “content” refers to the information, ideas, or data presented in a written work, as well as the structure and organization of that information. Content is created with a specific purpose in mind, whether it’s to inform, persuade, entertain, or educate the reader. 

While good writing is important for effective content creation, the emphasis is on the content itself and how it is presented rather than on the style or artistry of the writing.

Therefore, one can argue that while writing and content are related, they are not the same. Writing is a creative process that involves the use of language, style, and structure to produce high-quality written works, while content is the information or ideas presented in a written work, along with the organization and structure of that information.

FINAL QUESTION:

If the training data and text corpus you were trained on were entirely based on and dependent upon new content from humans, wouldn’t that impact the quality of your own data?

FINAL ANSWER:

Yes, it is possible that the quality of my training data and text corpus would be impacted if humans stopped creating new content. My training data and text corpus consist of a vast amount of text that has been generated by humans over many years. If humans stop creating new content, there would be a limited amount of new text available for me to learn from and use to generate high-quality content.

However, it is important to note that my training data and text corpus are diverse and cover a wide range of topics and styles. This means that even if humans stop creating new content, there would still be a large amount of text available for me to use as a basis for generating new content.

Additionally, there are techniques such as fine-tuning and transfer learning that can help me adapt to new or evolving domains, even in the absence of new human-generated content.

CHATGPT RESPONSE RECAP

That is the end of my experimental interview with ChatGPT. The article it was analyzing and responding to is titled, “ChatGPT won’t kill ‘writing’, but it WILL kill ‘content.’” 

Penny for your thoughts?