#how to chatgpt

[awaketake]

Struggling to keep up with content creation using ChatGPT? This video explores 10 ChatGPT Chrome Extensions.

These ChatGPT Chrome Extensions will help you churn out unique content and speed-up your workflow!

From pre-made templates to voice recognition and search engine integration. These extensions offer a variety of functionalities to boost your productivity.

Chrome extensions will work on most chrome based browsers including Brave, Opera, Vivaldi and others.

Here are the ChatGPT Chrome Extensions covered in this video:

1️⃣ Keywords Everywhere Generate SEO friendly content with structured keyword research templates.

2️⃣ YouTube Summary with ChatGPT & Claude Summarize YouTube videos for repurposing content and learning.

3️⃣ Sider ChatGPT Sidebar All-in-one AI tool with PDF analysis, writing, OCR and more.

4️⃣ Web ChatGPT Access real-time search engine data to enhance ChatGPT's responses.

5️⃣ AI Prompt Genius Organize your custom ChatGPT prompts for easy access and future use.

6️⃣ ChatGPT for Google Gain insights from search results with ChatGPT comparisons and summaries.

7️⃣ Replai Craft engaging replies for Twitter and LinkedIn posts using AI.

8️⃣ & 9️⃣ Talk to ChatGPT & Promptheus ChatGPT using your voice and listen to the responses.

🔟 AIPRM Library of 3600+ curated prompt templates for various content creation needs.

At the end I will show how to speed up your workflow using ChatGPT Prompt Templates and the ChatGPT Desktop App.

You don't need to type a prompt every single time! Instead copy/ paste the prompt from the template, replace the keywords and hit enter.

[foldingfittedsheets]

I can’t express the horror I felt when my receptionist at the doctor yesterday told me I should use chatgpt for a list of name change stuff.

I didn’t want to get into a whole thing about how wretched it is for the environment so I just said, “I don’t trust robots.”

She just laughed and said it could just make a list for me.

I’m wary of aging into the type of older person who fears technology but that fucking thing is full of sin and lies.

[sculien]

"well chatgpt told me-"

that youre stupid? bc youre stupid. stop using chatgpt, stupid

[dduane]

Status report, "This Week's Most Outrageously Ironic DARVO Attempt" Dep't

Insert BIG ol' eyeroll here.

[fantasybooksandtealeaves]

i'm gonna need ya'll to put the AI art down because it's rotting your fucking brains

what do you mean you'll only watch the adaptation of your favorite book "if it's AI"? what do you mean "only AI art can do justice to the characters"? never mind that every piece of character "art" AI spits out all looks like the same version of a photoshopped plastic mannequin. never mind that it relies on actual, stolen art to even exist. never mind that big studios are already trying to find every possible avenue to replace talented, dedicated human workers with AI

it terrifies me how willing some of you are to yield our crafts, our humanity, our passions in favor of worshipping at the altar of the black hole of vapid soullessness that is AI. all because the actors they cast don't live up to the insane, arbitrary standards you made up for your fictional boyfriends

I beg ya'll to think critically. I beg you to consider the very real implications of the things you say. because they exist and they aren't fucking pretty.

[durgeapologist]

Let's Talk About Ir Abelas, Da'ean

As some of you may know, I am vehemently against the dishonest use of AI in fandom and creative spaces. It has been brought to my attention by many, many people (and something I myself have thought on many times) that there is a DreadRook fic that is super popular and confirmed to be written at least partially with AI. I have the texts to prove it was written (at least) with the help of the Grammarly Rewrite generative feature.

Before I go any further, let it be known I was friends with this author; their use of rewrite features is something they told me and have told many other people who they have shared their fic with. It is not however, at the time of posting this, tagged or mentioned on their fic on AO3, in any capacity. I did in fact reach out to the author before making this post. They made absolutely no attempt to agree to state the use of Rewrite AI on their fic, nor be honest or upfront (in my opinion) about the possibility of their fic being complete generative AI. They denied the use of generative AI as a whole, though they did confirm (once again) use of the rewrite feature on Grammarly.

That all said: I do not feel comfortable letting this lie; since I have been asked by many people to make this, this post is simply for awareness.

You can form your own opinion, if you wish to. In fact, I encourage you to do such.

Aside from the, once again, high volume word output of around 352K words in less than 3 months (author says they had 10 chapters pre-written over "about a month" before they began posting; they are also on record saying they can write 5K-10K daily) from November until now, I have also said if you are familiar with AI services or peruse AI sites like ChatGPT, C.AI, J.AI, or any others similar to these, AI writing is very easy to pick out.

After some intense digging, research, and what I believe to be full confirmation via AI detection software used by professional publishers, there is a large and staggering possibility that the fic is almost entirely AI generated, bar some excerpts and paragraphs, here and there. I will post links below of the highly-resourced detection software that a few paragraphs and an entire chapter from this fic were plugged into; you are more than welcome to do with this information what you please.

I implore you to use critical thinking skills, and understand that when this many pieces in a work come back with such a high percentage of AI detected, that there is something going on. (There was a plethora of other AI detection softwares used that also corroborate these findings; I only find it useful to attach the most reputable source.)

Excerpts:

82% Likely Written by AI, 4% Plagiarism Match

98% Likely Written by AI, 2% Plagiarism Match

100% Likely Written by AI, 4% Plagiarism Match

Some excerpts do in fact come back as 100% likely written by human; however, this does not mean that the author was not using the Grammarly Paraphrase/Rewrite feature for these excerpts.

The Grammarly Paraphrase/Rewrite feature does not typically clock as AI generative text, and alongside the example below, many excerpts from other fics were take and put through this feature, and then fed back into the AI detection software. Every single one came back looking like this, within 2% of results:

So, in my opinion, and many others, this goes beyond the use of the simple paraphrase/rewrite feature on Grammarly.

Entire Chapter (Most Recent):

67% Likely Written by AI

As well, just for some variety, another detection software that also clocked plagiarism in the text:

15% Plagiarism Match

To make it clear that I am not simply 'jealous' of this author or 'angry' at their work for simply being a popular work in the fandom, here are some excerpts from other fanfics in this fandom and in other fandoms that were ran through the same exact same detection software, all coming back as 100% human written. (If you would like to run my fic through this software or any others, you are more than welcome to. I do not want to run the risk of OP post manipulation, so I did not include my own.)

The Wolf's Mantle

100% Likely Human Written, 2% Plagiarism Match

A Memory Called Desire

99% Likely Human Written

Brand Loyalty

100% Likely Human Written

Heart of The Sun

98% Likely Human Written

Whether you choose to use AI in your own fandom works is entirely at your own discretion. However, it is important to be transparent about such usage.

AI has many negative impacts for creatives across many mediums, including writers, artists, and voice actors.

If you use AI, it should be tagged as such, so that people who do not want to engage in AI works can avoid engaging with it if they wish to.

ALL LINKS AND PICTURES COURTESY OF: @spiritroses

[kcuf-ad]

Anyone who uses AI is a pussy ass bitch.

Grab a pencil. Learn to draw.

Grab a keyboard/pencil. Learn to write .

Talk to a human person. Don't talk shit with ChatGPT.

Roleplay with real people. Don't talk to Character.Ai.

Commission a person. Don't ask AI.

Respect Miyazaki. Don't you fucking dare you use Ghibli Filter on your Pictures.

Don't whine like a little bitch when you get called out for it.

[crow-caller]

I really do think looking at bad writing is one of the best ways to learn about writing in general, especially for beginners.

the thing is, writing in general is highly subjective- a good sentence will be good in different ways to different people, or not impress someone at all.

a bad sentence? most people can spot bad sentences easy, especially if it is presented to them as 'here's an example of a bad sentence, let's unpack why.'

bad writing can also be very funny, which I think is again often more engaging than 'here's a work of literary genius go analyze it'. Like here's some bad writing from lightlark3:

The moment it was out of Horus’s grip, his body became bones. The flesh turned to ash. He became a corpse.

it's dumb as hell, but I think could foster a solid discussion when you ask 'why? what is the author intending to say? what about it makes it feel 'clunky'? How would you write the same idea?'

[superbellsubways]

🍂

[cordaged]

GREED / DESIRE / NEED

[fursasaida]

Hi! Just wanted to ask. How can I give my students assignments that are chat-gpt proof? Or that they won't just copy the answer without at least doing some editing?

Hi! So, I don't think anything is ChatGPT-proof. You fundamentally cannot stop people from using it to take a shortcut. You can't even stop them from copying the answer without editing it. However, I think you can work with this reality. So, you can do three things:

Don't be a cop about it.

If you make your objective "stop the children from using the thing to cheat," you are focusing on the wrong thing. You will be constantly scrutinizing every submission with suspicion, you will be accusing people of cheating--and some of them will not have cheated, and they will remember this forever--and you will be aiming at enforcement (which is trying to hold back the sea) instead of on inviting and supporting learning whenever and wherever possible. (I'll come back to this under item 2.)

Regarding why enforcement is holding back the sea: It is fundamentally rational for them to do this. We, who "love learning" (i.e. are good at what our academic system sees as learning, for various reasons have built our lives around that, happen to enjoy these activities), see everything they might cheat themselves of by doing it, because we know what we got out of doing this type of work. Many students, however--especially at the kind of school I teach at--are there to get the piece of paper that might, if they're lucky, allow them access to a relatively livable and stable income. The things that are wrong with this fact are structural and nothing to do with students' failings as people, or (tfuh) laziness, or whatever. We cannot make this not true (we can certainly try to push against it in certain ways, but that only goes so far). More pragmatically, chatgpt and similar are going to keep getting better, and detecting them is going to get harder, and your relationships with your students will be further and further damaged as you are forced to hound them more, suspect them more, falsely accuse more people, while also looking like an idiot because plenty of them will get away with it. A productive classroom requires trust. The trust goes both ways. Being a cop about this will destroy it in both directions.

So the first thing you have to do is really, truly accept that some of them are going to use it and you are not always going to know when they do. And when I say accept this, I mean you actually need to be ok with it. I find it helps to remember that the fact that a bot can produce writing to a standard that makes teachers worry means we have been teaching people to be shitty writers. I don't know that so much is lost if we devalue the 5-paragraph SAT essay and its brethren.

So the reason my policy is to say it's ok to use chatgpt or similar as long as you tell me so and give me some thinking about what you got from using it is that a) I am dropping the charade that we don't all know what's going on and thereby making it (pedagogical term) chill; b) I am modeling/suggesting that if you use it, it's a good idea to be critical about what it tells you (which I desperately want everyone to know in general, not just my students in a classroom); c) I am providing an invitation to learn from using chatgpt, rather than avoid learning by using it. Plenty of them won't take me up on that. That's fine (see item 3 below).

So ok, we have at least established the goal of coming at it from acceptance. Then what do you do at that point?

Think about what is unique to your class and your students and build assignments around that.

Assignments, of course, don't have to be simply "what did Author mean by Term" or "list the significant thingies." A prof I used to TA under gave students the option of interviewing a family member or friend about their experiences with public housing in the week we taught public housing. Someone I know who teaches a college biology class has an illustration-based assignment to draw in the artsier students who are in her class against their will. I used to have an extra-credit question that asked them to pick anything in the city that they thought might be some kind of clue about the past in that place, do some research about it, and tell me what they found out and how. (And that's how I learned how Canal St. got its name! Learning something you didn't know from a student's work is one of the greatest feelings there is.) One prompt I intend to use in this class will be something to the effect of, "Do you own anything--a t-shirt, a mug, a phone case--that has the outline of your city, state, or country on it? Why? How did you get it, and what does having this item with this symbol on it mean to you? Whether you personally have one or not, why do you think so many people own items like this?" (This is for political geography week, if anyone's wondering.)

These are all things that target students' personal interests and capabilities, the environments they live in, and their relationships within their communities. Chatgpt can fake that stuff, but not very well. My advisor intends to use prompts that refer directly to things he said in class or conversations that were had in class, rather than to a given reading, in hopes that that will also make it harder for chatgpt to fake well because it won't have the context. The more your class is designed around the specific institution you teach at and student body you serve, the easier that is to do. (Obviously, how possible that is is going to vary based on what you're teaching. When I taught Urban Studies using the city we all lived in as the example all through the semester, it was so easy to make everything very tailored to the students I had in that class that semester. That's not the same--or it doesn't work the same way--if you're teaching Shakespeare. But I know someone who performs monologues from the plays in class and has his students direct him and give him notes as a way of drawing them into the speech and its niceties of meaning. Chatgpt is never going to know what stage directions were given in that room. There are possibilities.) This is all, I guess, a long way of saying that you'll have a better time constructing assignments chatgpt will be bad at if you view your class as a particular situation, occurring only once (these people, this year), which is a situation that has the purpose of encouraging thought--rather than as an information-transfer mechanism. Of course information transfer happens, but that is not what I and my students are doing together here.

Now, they absolutely can plug this type of prompt into chatgpt. I've tried it myself. I asked it to give me a personal essay about the political geography prompt and a critical personal essay about the same thing. (I recommend doing this with your own prospective assignments! See what they'd get and whether it's something you'd grade highly. If it is, then change either the goal of the assignment or at least the prompt.) Both of them were decent if you are grading the miserable 5-paragraph essay. Both of them were garbage if you are looking for evidence of a person turning their attention for the first time to something they have taken for granted all their lives. Chatgpt has neither personality nor experiences, so it makes incredibly vague, general statements in the first person that are dull as dishwater and simply do not engage with what the prompt is really asking for. I already graded on "tell me what you think of this/how this relates to your life" in addition to "did you understand the reading," because what I care about is whether they're thinking. So students absolutely can and will plug that prompt into chatgpt and simply c/p the output. They just won't get high marks for it.

If they're fine with not getting high marks, then okay. For a lot of them this is an elective they're taking essentially at random to get that piece of paper; I'm not gonna knock the hustle, and (see item 1) I couldn't stop them if I wanted to. What I can do is try to make class time engaging, build relationships with them that make them feel good about telling me their thoughts, and present them with a variety of assignments that create opportunities for different strengths, points of interest, and ways into the material, in hopes of hooking as many different people in as many different ways as I can.

This brings me back to what I said about inviting learning. Because I have never yet in my life taught a course that was for people majoring in the subject, I long ago accepted that I cannot get everyone to engage with every concept, subject, or idea (or even most of them). All I can do is invite them to get interested in the thing at hand in every class, in every assignment, in every choice of reading, in every question I ask them. How frequently each person accepts these invitations (and which ones) is going to vary hugely. But I also accept that people often need to be invited more than once, and even if they don't want to go through the door I'm holding open for them right now, the fact that they were invited this time might make it more likely for them to go through it the next time it comes up, or the time after that. I'll never know what will come of all of these invitations, and that's great, actually. I don't want to make them care about everything I care about, or know everything I know. All I want is to offer them new ways to be curious.

Therefore: if they use chatgpt to refuse an invitation this week, fine. That would probably have happened anyway in a lot of cases even without chatgpt. But, just as before, I can snag some of those people's attention on one part of this module in class tomorrow. Some of them I'll get next time with a different type of assignment. Some of them I'll hook for a moment with a joke. I don't take the times that doesn't happen as failures. But the times that it does are all wins that are not diminished by the times it doesn't.

Actually try to think of ways to use chatgpt to promote learning.

I DREAM of the day I'm teaching something where it makes sense to have students edit an AI-written text. Editing is an incredible way to get better at writing. I could generate one in class and we could do it all together. I could give them a prompt, ask them to feed it into chatgpt, and ask them to turn in both what they got and some notes on how they think it could be better. I could give them a pretty traditional "In Text, Author says Thing. What did Author mean by that?" prompt, have them get an answer from chatgpt, and then ask them to fact-check it. Etc. All of these get them thinking about written communication and, incidentally, demonstrate the tool's limitations.

I'm sure there are and will be tons of much more creative ideas for how to incorporate chatgpt rather than fight it. (Once upon a time, the idea of letting students use calculators in math class was also scandalous to many teachers.) I have some geography-specific ideas for how to use image generation as well. When it comes specifically to teaching, I think it's a waste of time for us to be handwringing instead of applying ourselves to this question. I am well aware of the political and ethical problems with chatgpt, and that's something to discuss with, probably, more advanced students in a seminar setting. But we won't (per item 1) get very far simply insisting that Thing Bad and Thing Stupid. So how do we use it to invite learning? That's the question I'm interested in.

Finally, because tangential to your question: I think there's nothing wrong with bringing back more in-class writing and even oral exams (along with take-home assignments that appeal to strengths and interests other than expository writing as mentioned above). These assessments play to different strengths than written take-homes. For some students, that means they'll be harder or scarier; by the same token, for other students they'll be easier and more confidence-building. (Plus, "being able to think on your feet" is also a very good ~real-world skill~ to teach.) In the spirit of trying to offer as many ways in as possible, I think that kind of diversification in assignments is a perfectly good idea.

[atheistcake]

They are doodles that I have there and I didn't dare to upload, I'm still practicing them. 👀👀

[m1ckeyb3rry]

what really fries me about people who use chatgpt on their homework in my classes is they get the wrong answer and then they text me and i tell them how to do it and they’re like “😱😱 how did you know how to do that ??” well maybe if you opened the slides instead of rushing to jerk off ai you would’ve realized that the professors tell you how to do what they want you to do 😭😭 you dumb fucks FKDKDNJSND LIKE ??

[eggcats]

Honestly annoying as hell to constantly see "signs someone is using AI in their writing" and it's all normal shit everyone does, like I'm sorry using em-dashes and using normal words like "delve" doesn't mean it's AI it just means the AI stole someone's work and copied it.

Like. Every single time I look at my writing for fanfic and book reviews and it has like, every "red flag for AI" in them I get paranoid someone thinks I - a person who is STRONGLY anti-AI - used AI in my writing. I assure you I didn't, if my writing or reviews are bad it's all organic, baybee.

[betterbemeta]

I think that if James Somerton 'lasted' a little longer, he would have been really into ChatGPT. Because that's a way to automate what he already did. Whether or not he was self-aware of how his actions were dishonest he (or a lackey) still needed to go to third parties directly to lift their writing. He still needed to bullshit weird correlations between nazis and closet homosexuality (?) with his own imagination. If he had been able to just, ask ChatGPT to write him something he could have eliminated all effort from his 'work' while obscuring the sources/'self-knowledge of a lack of sources' even from himself.

What he really liked being was a mouthpiece: a personality that could receive fame for reciting plagiarized and made-up stuff in a charismatic way. He invested a lot into cameras and styling and that type of thing. At the end of the day, everything he made was just 'content' to sludge through his outward facing presentation and he didn't have to really understand any of it.

Just like ChatGPT, copyright law didn't stop him, and his videos were circulated for years after people began complaining about him because of how 'easy' he was to watch which means even the minimum effort to learn that he lacked integrity was arduous by comparison. The low barrier for audience entry mattered way more than knowledge of his grifting for a relatively long time.

When people complain about ChatGPT 'stealing' from sources and 'hallucinating' we should think less about 'it's bad because it's illegal/it's violating copyright' or 'it's bad because it will lie to you with the authority of an impartial machine', because real human beings can create the same result albeit with a lot more front-end effort. ChatGPT is not special in this way.

We should be talking about how filling every sphere of life with Robo-Somertons is a bad idea, and how terrifying it is to see 'James Somerton behavior' as what corporate executives consider to be peak performance.

[spookyboywhump]

It feels like every month I see more posts in the whump community trying to normalize using ChatGPT and I’m beating this shit back with a broom