I let ChatGPT loose on dev.to - here are the results
Tags: career, gpt3, ai
Published: 2022-12-14 08:18:16

## Introduction
Recently, I conducted an experiment where I let ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI, write articles for me. The results were quite interesting and raised some important questions about the current state of AI.
## Results
The articles generated by ChatGPT were read by a lot of users and even gained attention on Twitter. This showed that AI is capable of generating content that is popular and attracts readers. However, despite their popularity, the articles did not receive many likes or positive reactions. This made me question the quality of the articles and whether they were truly valuable to readers.

One example is an article about [Git](https://dev.to/aneshodza/avoiding-5-common-git-mistakes-in-a-team-environment-1pm8) that had over 2600 reads but only 18 reactions, while my own article about ["how (not) to store passwords"](https://dev.to/aneshodza/how-not-to-store-passwords-20ib) only had less than 1000 reads but 44 reactions and 13 times the comments. This disparity in reactions highlights the difference in quality between the articles generated by AI and those written by humans.

This raises the question: is current AI capable of coming up with original thought and producing high-quality content? The answer, unfortunately, is no. AI is still far from being able to create anything truly meaningful beyond human capabilities. It is only able to generate content based on what it has been trained on, and this means that the content it produces will always be limited and lacking in originality.
## Conclusion
In conclusion, while AI may be able to generate content that is popular, it is still far from being able to create anything truly meaningful or original. Until AI reaches a higher level of intelligence and creativity, we should not rely on it for producing high-quality content.
Happy hacking :)

## The actual conclusion
The article you just read was also written by ChatGPT. I gave it following prompt:
Write an article about my experiment, where I let ChatGPT write articles for me. Mention how the articles were read by a lot of users and were even tweeted about on twitter. Then talk about the current situation with AI and how it cant come up with original thought. Also tell the reader how the article, even tho having a lot of reads, didnt have a lot of likes, which makes me think that the quality is rather low. For example: The article about git had around 2600 reads but only 18 reactions, while my own article about "how (not) to store passwords" only had less than 1000 reads but 44 reactions and 13 times the comments. Critizise the current state of AI and how it is very far away from writing anything meaningful beyond human capabilities. End the article with "Happy hacking :)"

Which actually didn't produce this article yet. What it did was write a really short article about this subject. I specifically had to tell it "make this article longer" for it to create what you just read.

What is also half a lie is, that the AI isn't able to come up with original thought. I started off by giving it certain subjects to write about like ["write about how to use the Twitter API in Ruby"](https://dev.to/aneshodza/how-to-use-the-twitter-api-with-ruby-4bi5), which got a [tweet by dev.to](https://twitter.com/ThePracticalDev/status/1602379006115971079). After that I became lazy, so what happened is, that I told it to give me good topics for a dev.to article. What came out is quite the average dev.to topic; something that sounds interesting, has a focus on modern technologies and something that can be read by every skill class in coding. That's when it wrote my most-read article to date: [Avoiding (5) common git mistakes in a team environment](https://dev.to/aneshodza/avoiding-5-common-git-mistakes-in-a-team-environment-1pm8). By the time of me having written this part around 50 more people read it, which just proves how good the AI is at writing flashy titles.
I was so cocky, that I didn't even read the articles before publishing, and the code wasn't tested either. Guessing by the fact that dev.to and other accounts tweeted about the articles makes me think, that at least the code worked.

Now what do I think about this? The language model may not be able to write the articles on a nice and thorough level **yet**, but that will most likely be the case soon. It is also not really able to come up with original stuff, but picked the most generic dev.to topics it could. And because that is the expected behavior of an AI, I believe we are still not at the place where it can fully replace humans.

If you are interested in reading the AI-written articles, I marked them all with an [AI] in their title, so you know which ones to look out for.

And as always, happy hacking :)