I can tell technical papers influenced ChatGPT's outputs the most. Most of the articles generated using it may be regurgitated, but I can't deny how easily digestable the info is when presented that way.

There appears to be a coherent effort among the general populace , conscious or unconscious, to shape discourse going forward to look more ChatGPT style in general. Words like “delve”, “crucial” etc have become more common even among real people in face to face communication and in record time.

Much as I find it overly formal, I support it on the grounds that it frustrates attempts to “detect” if LLMs are used and that is very good.

Well, as long as they don't delve too greedily and too deep.

> it frustrates attempts to “detect” if LLMs are used and that is very good.

Why is that good?

If you are asking, you’re the kind of person it’s designed to frustrate. Good. Stay frustrated.

Is this an insult, or a criticism?

If you think I’m doing something I shouldn’t, tell me what you think I’m doing that I shouldn’t, and why I shouldn’t?

Why would you just wish me ill?