"THE TECHNOLOGY IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE SIMILAR TO TRANSLATION. YOU'RE PUTTING SOMETHING IN A DIFFERENT WAY."
There is reason to believe what Yin is selling. In February, there was a short mania within the Elon Musk-backed company OpenAI and its silver-tongued text generator. The generator has yet to be released to the public, with OpenAI asserting that it was"too dangerous" within our present Facebook-poisoned news culture. No matter how hyperbolic that warning may be, it seemed we were fast approaching a planet where machines may demand column distance.
It's a reality echoed by Neil Yager, the main scientist and co-founder of Phrasee, an AI platform that formulates perfect, clinically precise email headlines for press releases and marketing campaigns, more you can read here https://scamfighter.net/review/essaybot.com. He states that whether we realize it or not, we're already reading a fair amount of computer-generated text as part of our media diet. "In things like weather reports, it is called data to text. You take some numbers, like the humidity and heat, and apply an algorithm automatically to spin into a story," he explains. "You have some simple logic in there. 'If the temperature is over this, then say that it's likely to be a hot day.' Robo-journalism is quite a big area."
Still, it was difficult to believe that technology could satisfactorily replicate a standard five-paragraph high school essay. Sure, EssayBot managed to introduce itself in its own uncanny syntax, but this was simple. How can it hold up from the eyes of a wary teacher?
THE RESULTS WERE UNEVEN.
EssayBot gave me a rock-solid opening paragraph, after which I was introduced with a bundle of additional paragraphs I could plug in the copy. As before, each of those paragraphs was plucked from the web and rephrased into something less plagiaristic by the website's algorithm. I continued that process until I had about 700 words that tracked the basics of the trial and also some light evaluation about segregation in the public school system now. The results were uneven. The language and the facts were largely reasonable, but the overall narrative was jumbled. The article was not tethered to a concrete thesis and read just like a loose distillation awakened by a thing that understood all the information but was not able to synthesize it in an authentic argument.