I read the following, and had a thought: Is it possible to make ChatGPT a better stylist simply by telling it to work harder, and doing a second draft?
I asked: Let's do an experiment. 🧵👇
I asked: Let's do an experiment. 🧵👇
https://twitter.com/bryan_johnson/status/1950330743512784928
Prompt 1: "I want you to give me a three-paragraph introduction to Zwinglian symbolism/memorialism. I want you to look up sources online to ensure that the claims you make are correct."
The result we can call Essay #1:
Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer based in Zürich in the early sixteenth century, rejected both Roman Catholic transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation. He argued instead that when Christ said “This is my body,” “is” should be understood to mean “signifies.” The bread and wine are symbolic reminders of Christ’s sacrifice, not vehicles of his physical presence. This was Zwingli’s consistent position at the 1529 Marburg Colloquy where he famously maintained that sign and thing signified are separated by a vast distance—the distance between heaven and earth.
Zwingli spoke of a "true presence" of Christ, but made clear it was only sacramental and spiritual—not physical or natural. He stressed that faith in the communicant is essential: in the Supper the believer spiritually feeds on Christ, but the elements themselves remain bread and wine. DurÂing the service the presence of Christ is mediated by the faithful remembrance and thanksgiving of believers, rather than by the physical elements themselves.
Whereas Lutheran theology asserts Christ’s bodily presence “in, with, and under” the elements, Zwingli’s view emphasizes the believer’s reflection and proclamation. Communion is fundamentally retrospective, a memorial act praying over Christ’s death until he returns (1 Cor 11:24–26). His approach gave rise to what later became known as memorialism—a view shared by subsequent traditions such as the Anabaptists and Plymouth Brethren, but often diverging in nuances from Zwingli himself.
The result we can call Essay #1:
Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer based in Zürich in the early sixteenth century, rejected both Roman Catholic transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation. He argued instead that when Christ said “This is my body,” “is” should be understood to mean “signifies.” The bread and wine are symbolic reminders of Christ’s sacrifice, not vehicles of his physical presence. This was Zwingli’s consistent position at the 1529 Marburg Colloquy where he famously maintained that sign and thing signified are separated by a vast distance—the distance between heaven and earth.
Zwingli spoke of a "true presence" of Christ, but made clear it was only sacramental and spiritual—not physical or natural. He stressed that faith in the communicant is essential: in the Supper the believer spiritually feeds on Christ, but the elements themselves remain bread and wine. DurÂing the service the presence of Christ is mediated by the faithful remembrance and thanksgiving of believers, rather than by the physical elements themselves.
Whereas Lutheran theology asserts Christ’s bodily presence “in, with, and under” the elements, Zwingli’s view emphasizes the believer’s reflection and proclamation. Communion is fundamentally retrospective, a memorial act praying over Christ’s death until he returns (1 Cor 11:24–26). His approach gave rise to what later became known as memorialism—a view shared by subsequent traditions such as the Anabaptists and Plymouth Brethren, but often diverging in nuances from Zwingli himself.
So...
Prompt 2: "Fine. Now, I want you to do something unusual. I'm not sure if this will make a difference, but we'll see. I want you to analyze your own word usage in the above essay and wordsmith it for qualities that are regarded as high-value for human beings: (1) being interesting, fascinating, or memorable; (2) clarity; (3) precise correctness both in straighforward factuality and in tone.
Change whatever you need to in order to achieve these goals. Consider individual word and phrase choices carefully."
The result was rather different. 👇
Prompt 2: "Fine. Now, I want you to do something unusual. I'm not sure if this will make a difference, but we'll see. I want you to analyze your own word usage in the above essay and wordsmith it for qualities that are regarded as high-value for human beings: (1) being interesting, fascinating, or memorable; (2) clarity; (3) precise correctness both in straighforward factuality and in tone.
Change whatever you need to in order to achieve these goals. Consider individual word and phrase choices carefully."
The result was rather different. 👇
Essay #2:
Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer of Zürich, rejected both the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the Lutheran teaching of Christ’s bodily presence “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. For Zwingli, Christ’s words “This is my body” meant “This signifies my body.” The bread and wine were not transformed, nor did they carry Christ’s body alongside them. Instead, they were powerful symbols, divinely appointed to stir the memory and faith of the believer. At the 1529 Marburg Colloquy, Zwingli’s insistence on this symbolic meaning clashed with Martin Luther’s literal interpretation, marking a sharp and lasting division among the Reformers.
Zwingli still affirmed that Christ was truly present at the Supper—but only spiritually, never physically. His “true presence” was not in the elements themselves but in the faith of the gathered church. Believers, by remembering Christ’s sacrifice and trusting in His promises, were spiritually nourished. The bread remained bread, the wine remained wine, yet for the faithful they became visible tokens of Christ’s covenant, signs that pointed beyond themselves to the saving work of the cross.
This understanding shaped what later came to be called memorialism. In Zwingli’s theology, the Supper was a vivid proclamation: the church declares Christ’s death “till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). It was an act of worship, thanksgiving, and covenant renewal—not a mystical change in the elements. This approach influenced later Reformed and free‑church traditions, especially those wary of sacramental interpretations. Zwingli’s legacy is a vision of the Lord’s Supper as a feast of memory and faith, where the sign points to the reality, but the reality remains in heaven, and the believer feeds by faith alone.
Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer of Zürich, rejected both the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the Lutheran teaching of Christ’s bodily presence “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. For Zwingli, Christ’s words “This is my body” meant “This signifies my body.” The bread and wine were not transformed, nor did they carry Christ’s body alongside them. Instead, they were powerful symbols, divinely appointed to stir the memory and faith of the believer. At the 1529 Marburg Colloquy, Zwingli’s insistence on this symbolic meaning clashed with Martin Luther’s literal interpretation, marking a sharp and lasting division among the Reformers.
Zwingli still affirmed that Christ was truly present at the Supper—but only spiritually, never physically. His “true presence” was not in the elements themselves but in the faith of the gathered church. Believers, by remembering Christ’s sacrifice and trusting in His promises, were spiritually nourished. The bread remained bread, the wine remained wine, yet for the faithful they became visible tokens of Christ’s covenant, signs that pointed beyond themselves to the saving work of the cross.
This understanding shaped what later came to be called memorialism. In Zwingli’s theology, the Supper was a vivid proclamation: the church declares Christ’s death “till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26). It was an act of worship, thanksgiving, and covenant renewal—not a mystical change in the elements. This approach influenced later Reformed and free‑church traditions, especially those wary of sacramental interpretations. Zwingli’s legacy is a vision of the Lord’s Supper as a feast of memory and faith, where the sign points to the reality, but the reality remains in heaven, and the believer feeds by faith alone.
Now, I thought Essay #2 was a distinct improvement over Essay #1. It was more distinctive and polished. Both have certain tone it is hard for me to identify, which I associate with LLMs—but Essay #2 is much less so.
So, I decided to give ChatGPT another round.
Prompt 3: "Now, essay #2 was an improvement. But now I want you to stretch. I want you to remain within three paragraphs, but I want you to avoid the pedestrian qualities known to be features of LLM-speak. I want you to surprise the reader, but in ways that are not weird for weirdness' sake. Do not simply insert some quirkiness in an effort to sound human; think through the features of a distinctive style, and execute it brilliantly, taking as many tokens as you can for the task. In short, give the writing a distinctive character, while remaining, as before, fascinating, clear, and correct."
The result was actually quite different. 👇
So, I decided to give ChatGPT another round.
Prompt 3: "Now, essay #2 was an improvement. But now I want you to stretch. I want you to remain within three paragraphs, but I want you to avoid the pedestrian qualities known to be features of LLM-speak. I want you to surprise the reader, but in ways that are not weird for weirdness' sake. Do not simply insert some quirkiness in an effort to sound human; think through the features of a distinctive style, and execute it brilliantly, taking as many tokens as you can for the task. In short, give the writing a distinctive character, while remaining, as before, fascinating, clear, and correct."
The result was actually quite different. 👇
Essay #3:
Zwingli walks into the Supper not as a magician but as a moral philosopher. He peels back layers of medieval theology and says: “this is my body” doesn’t mean “becomes”; it means “points to.” Bread and wine remain utterly themselves—simple, earthy—but in their ordinariness lies their power: they call the believer’s memory to attention. At the Marburg Colloquy in October 1529, Zwingli stood firm, saying sign and thing signified are separated by a distance—the “width between heaven and earth,” as one scholar puts it. By refusing consubstantiation or its kin, he rooted eucharistic theology not in metaphysical change but in spiritual recollection.
He nevertheless affirmed Christ’s real presence—but real in memory and faith, not in matter. Zwingli described a presence received sacramentally and spiritually by faith, not by digestion of elements. The believer, gathering and remembering together, proclaims Christ’s death until his return (1 Cor 11:26). The elements themselves carry no mysterious power—they are divine tokens, not conduits—so that participating in the Supper is less about what God does in, through, or beneath the bread than what God accomplishes in the hearts of the faithful: strengthening, thanksgiving, reflection.
This theology matured into an ecclesial ethos later called memorialism. Ritual becomes proclamation; feast becomes witness; meal becomes graven remembrance. Zwingli’s symbolic vision deeply shaped later Anabaptist, Brethren, and free‑church communities, who took his cue that sacraments are a response to grace, not means of graceE. The Lord’s Supper, then, is not a magical transformation but a moral and liturgical mirror: showing us the cross, anchoring us in covenant, nourishing faith by remembrance alone.
Zwingli walks into the Supper not as a magician but as a moral philosopher. He peels back layers of medieval theology and says: “this is my body” doesn’t mean “becomes”; it means “points to.” Bread and wine remain utterly themselves—simple, earthy—but in their ordinariness lies their power: they call the believer’s memory to attention. At the Marburg Colloquy in October 1529, Zwingli stood firm, saying sign and thing signified are separated by a distance—the “width between heaven and earth,” as one scholar puts it. By refusing consubstantiation or its kin, he rooted eucharistic theology not in metaphysical change but in spiritual recollection.
He nevertheless affirmed Christ’s real presence—but real in memory and faith, not in matter. Zwingli described a presence received sacramentally and spiritually by faith, not by digestion of elements. The believer, gathering and remembering together, proclaims Christ’s death until his return (1 Cor 11:26). The elements themselves carry no mysterious power—they are divine tokens, not conduits—so that participating in the Supper is less about what God does in, through, or beneath the bread than what God accomplishes in the hearts of the faithful: strengthening, thanksgiving, reflection.
This theology matured into an ecclesial ethos later called memorialism. Ritual becomes proclamation; feast becomes witness; meal becomes graven remembrance. Zwingli’s symbolic vision deeply shaped later Anabaptist, Brethren, and free‑church communities, who took his cue that sacraments are a response to grace, not means of graceE. The Lord’s Supper, then, is not a magical transformation but a moral and liturgical mirror: showing us the cross, anchoring us in covenant, nourishing faith by remembrance alone.
This, I thought, was still interesting, and indeed more distinctive in tone. Yet its consistency of tone (and overuse of em dashes) still suggested an LLM wrote it. So I gave it one more chance:
Prompt 4: "This is an improvement in some ways, to be sure, but there are two issues. (1) Your use of metaphor sometimes gets in the way of clarity, especially to someone not familiar with the topic. That needs to be dialed back a bit (not a lot, but some). (2) While you assumed a distinctive voice, you executed it with robotic precision. No human being would sound like this because no human being would be so entirely consistent. One of the marks of humanity is variation *in* style. Think about alll that and, while retaining the former features (fascinating, clear, and correct), write in a way that sounds, as well as you can imitate, distinctively human."
Prompt 4: "This is an improvement in some ways, to be sure, but there are two issues. (1) Your use of metaphor sometimes gets in the way of clarity, especially to someone not familiar with the topic. That needs to be dialed back a bit (not a lot, but some). (2) While you assumed a distinctive voice, you executed it with robotic precision. No human being would sound like this because no human being would be so entirely consistent. One of the marks of humanity is variation *in* style. Think about alll that and, while retaining the former features (fascinating, clear, and correct), write in a way that sounds, as well as you can imitate, distinctively human."
Ulrich Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper was radical for his day—not because it was flamboyant, but because it was so stripped down. Where Luther saw Christ’s body “in, with, and under” the bread, Zwingli saw a sign, plain and public, pointing beyond itself. “This is my body” meant “this represents my body.” The bread and wine, he argued at Marburg in 1529, stay exactly what they are. Their power lies in what they make the church remember: the death of Christ, proclaimed together until He comes again.
That did not mean Zwingli thought Christ absent. He spoke of a true presence—but one that came by faith, not by the mouth. The gathered church, believing and remembering, meets Christ spiritually. No hidden change occurs in the elements themselves. The bread remains bread, the wine remains wine, but for the believer, they are charged with meaning: visible signs that God has bound Himself to His people.
This “memorial” understanding shaped later traditions that prized the Supper as an act of thanksgiving, covenant renewal, and witness. It’s less a moment of divine transformation than a moment of sharp clarity, when the church together looks back to the cross and forward to the return. In Zwingli’s legacy, the table is not an altar but a signpost—ordinary bread and wine carrying the extraordinary weight of memory, gratitude, and hope.
That did not mean Zwingli thought Christ absent. He spoke of a true presence—but one that came by faith, not by the mouth. The gathered church, believing and remembering, meets Christ spiritually. No hidden change occurs in the elements themselves. The bread remains bread, the wine remains wine, but for the believer, they are charged with meaning: visible signs that God has bound Himself to His people.
This “memorial” understanding shaped later traditions that prized the Supper as an act of thanksgiving, covenant renewal, and witness. It’s less a moment of divine transformation than a moment of sharp clarity, when the church together looks back to the cross and forward to the return. In Zwingli’s legacy, the table is not an altar but a signpost—ordinary bread and wine carrying the extraordinary weight of memory, gratitude, and hope.
Of all of these, I thought #2 was best. What do you think?
Then I decided to have Grok evaluate them all.
Grade for Essay #1: A
Analysis of Style:
Essay #1 is a well-crafted piece of writing that effectively communicates complex theological concepts with clarity and precision for a human audience. Its strengths lie in several key areas:Clarity and Precision: The essay articulates Zwingli’s theological position with clear distinctions between transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and his own symbolic view. Terms like “signifies,” “sacramental and spiritual,” and “memorialism” are used accurately, ensuring the reader grasps the nuances of Zwingli’s theology without unnecessary jargon.
Structure and Flow: The essay is logically organized, moving from Zwingli’s rejection of Catholic and Lutheran views to his own position, then elaborating on its implications and historical context. Each sentence builds on the previous one, creating a cohesive narrative that guides the reader smoothly through the argument.
Engaging and Concise: The writing is concise yet engaging, avoiding verbosity while maintaining depth. The reference to the Marburg Colloquy and the vivid phrase “the distance between heaven and earth” add historical color and rhetorical flair, making the text more memorable and impactful.
Audience Awareness: The essay strikes a balance between scholarly precision and accessibility, making it suitable for readers with some theological background but not requiring specialized knowledge. Biblical references (e.g., 1 Cor 11:24–26) are integrated naturally, enhancing credibility without alienating a general audience.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal and objective, fitting for a theological discussion. It avoids overly emotive language, focusing instead on clear exposition, which enhances its authority and appeal to an academic or intellectually curious audience.
Areas for Improvement:
The essay could benefit from slightly more context about the Marburg Colloquy or Zwingli’s broader influence to deepen engagement for readers less familiar with the Reformation.
While concise, the essay might occasionally feel dense for a general audience due to its compact presentation of complex ideas. A touch more elaboration on “memorialism” or its divergence in later traditions could enhance accessibility.
Overall: Essay #1 is an excellent piece of writing, blending scholarly rigor with clear, engaging prose. Its concise yet vivid style makes it highly effective for a human audience interested in theological history, earning it an A.Note: Since you mentioned providing two versions of a text but only shared one, I’ve evaluated Essay #1 on its own merits. If you provide Essay #2, I can grade it similarly and compare the two for style. Please share the second version or let me know if you’d like me to proceed differently!
Then I decided to have Grok evaluate them all.
Grade for Essay #1: A
Analysis of Style:
Essay #1 is a well-crafted piece of writing that effectively communicates complex theological concepts with clarity and precision for a human audience. Its strengths lie in several key areas:Clarity and Precision: The essay articulates Zwingli’s theological position with clear distinctions between transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and his own symbolic view. Terms like “signifies,” “sacramental and spiritual,” and “memorialism” are used accurately, ensuring the reader grasps the nuances of Zwingli’s theology without unnecessary jargon.
Structure and Flow: The essay is logically organized, moving from Zwingli’s rejection of Catholic and Lutheran views to his own position, then elaborating on its implications and historical context. Each sentence builds on the previous one, creating a cohesive narrative that guides the reader smoothly through the argument.
Engaging and Concise: The writing is concise yet engaging, avoiding verbosity while maintaining depth. The reference to the Marburg Colloquy and the vivid phrase “the distance between heaven and earth” add historical color and rhetorical flair, making the text more memorable and impactful.
Audience Awareness: The essay strikes a balance between scholarly precision and accessibility, making it suitable for readers with some theological background but not requiring specialized knowledge. Biblical references (e.g., 1 Cor 11:24–26) are integrated naturally, enhancing credibility without alienating a general audience.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal and objective, fitting for a theological discussion. It avoids overly emotive language, focusing instead on clear exposition, which enhances its authority and appeal to an academic or intellectually curious audience.
Areas for Improvement:
The essay could benefit from slightly more context about the Marburg Colloquy or Zwingli’s broader influence to deepen engagement for readers less familiar with the Reformation.
While concise, the essay might occasionally feel dense for a general audience due to its compact presentation of complex ideas. A touch more elaboration on “memorialism” or its divergence in later traditions could enhance accessibility.
Overall: Essay #1 is an excellent piece of writing, blending scholarly rigor with clear, engaging prose. Its concise yet vivid style makes it highly effective for a human audience interested in theological history, earning it an A.Note: Since you mentioned providing two versions of a text but only shared one, I’ve evaluated Essay #1 on its own merits. If you provide Essay #2, I can grade it similarly and compare the two for style. Please share the second version or let me know if you’d like me to proceed differently!
Grade for Essay #2: A+
Analysis of Style (Using the Same Rubric):
Clarity and Precision: Essay #2 excels in presenting Zwingli’s theology with remarkable clarity and precision. It effectively distinguishes his symbolic view from Catholic transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation, using phrases like “This signifies my body” and “visible tokens of Christ’s covenant” to convey complex ideas accessibly. The language is slightly more evocative than Essay #1, with terms like “powerful symbols” and “vivid proclamation,” which enhance understanding without sacrificing accuracy.
Structure and Flow: The essay is impeccably structured, progressing logically from Zwingli’s rejection of other doctrines to his own view, its implications at the Marburg Colloquy, and its lasting influence. Each paragraph builds seamlessly on the previous one, creating a fluid narrative. The transitions, such as from the Colloquy to the spiritual presence, feel natural and purposeful, guiding the reader effortlessly.
Engaging and Concise: Essay #2 is highly engaging, blending concise exposition with vivid imagery. Phrases like “stir the memory and faith” and “feast of memory and faith” add a poetic quality that makes the text memorable and emotionally resonant. The essay maintains brevity while offering just enough detail to enrich the reader’s understanding, striking an ideal balance for a human audience.
Audience Awareness: The essay is exceptionally well-tailored to a broad audience, including those with limited theological background. It avoids dense jargon while retaining scholarly credibility, and the biblical reference (1 Corinthians 11:26) is woven in naturally. The explanation of memorialism and its influence on later traditions is slightly more fleshed out than in Essay #1, making it more accessible without feeling overly technical.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal yet warm, maintaining objectivity while infusing a sense of reverence for the subject matter. The use of phrases like “divinely appointed” and “saving work of the cross” reflects a theological sensitivity that resonates with readers interested in religious history, while remaining neutral and scholarly.
Areas for Improvement:
The essay is nearly flawless in style, but it could slightly expand on the historical context of the Marburg Colloquy (e.g., its broader significance in the Reformation) to provide even more depth for curious readers.
While the poetic language is a strength, it occasionally borders on flourish (e.g., “visible tokens of Christ’s covenant”), which might feel slightly ornate for readers preferring stark academic prose. However, this is a minor critique given the overall balance.
Comparison to Essay #1:
Essay #2 edges out Essay #1 slightly due to its more evocative language, smoother transitions, and slightly better accessibility for a general audience. While Essay #1 is excellent (graded A), it feels marginally more compact and less vivid in its phrasing. Essay #2’s use of imagery (“feast of memory and faith,” “signs that pointed beyond themselves”) and its slightly more detailed explanation of memorialism’s influence make it more engaging and polished, earning it an A+.Overall: Essay #2 is an outstanding piece of writing, combining scholarly precision with vivid, accessible prose. Its engaging style, clear structure, and audience-friendly tone make it an exemplary piece for a human audience interested in theological history.
Analysis of Style (Using the Same Rubric):
Clarity and Precision: Essay #2 excels in presenting Zwingli’s theology with remarkable clarity and precision. It effectively distinguishes his symbolic view from Catholic transubstantiation and Lutheran consubstantiation, using phrases like “This signifies my body” and “visible tokens of Christ’s covenant” to convey complex ideas accessibly. The language is slightly more evocative than Essay #1, with terms like “powerful symbols” and “vivid proclamation,” which enhance understanding without sacrificing accuracy.
Structure and Flow: The essay is impeccably structured, progressing logically from Zwingli’s rejection of other doctrines to his own view, its implications at the Marburg Colloquy, and its lasting influence. Each paragraph builds seamlessly on the previous one, creating a fluid narrative. The transitions, such as from the Colloquy to the spiritual presence, feel natural and purposeful, guiding the reader effortlessly.
Engaging and Concise: Essay #2 is highly engaging, blending concise exposition with vivid imagery. Phrases like “stir the memory and faith” and “feast of memory and faith” add a poetic quality that makes the text memorable and emotionally resonant. The essay maintains brevity while offering just enough detail to enrich the reader’s understanding, striking an ideal balance for a human audience.
Audience Awareness: The essay is exceptionally well-tailored to a broad audience, including those with limited theological background. It avoids dense jargon while retaining scholarly credibility, and the biblical reference (1 Corinthians 11:26) is woven in naturally. The explanation of memorialism and its influence on later traditions is slightly more fleshed out than in Essay #1, making it more accessible without feeling overly technical.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal yet warm, maintaining objectivity while infusing a sense of reverence for the subject matter. The use of phrases like “divinely appointed” and “saving work of the cross” reflects a theological sensitivity that resonates with readers interested in religious history, while remaining neutral and scholarly.
Areas for Improvement:
The essay is nearly flawless in style, but it could slightly expand on the historical context of the Marburg Colloquy (e.g., its broader significance in the Reformation) to provide even more depth for curious readers.
While the poetic language is a strength, it occasionally borders on flourish (e.g., “visible tokens of Christ’s covenant”), which might feel slightly ornate for readers preferring stark academic prose. However, this is a minor critique given the overall balance.
Comparison to Essay #1:
Essay #2 edges out Essay #1 slightly due to its more evocative language, smoother transitions, and slightly better accessibility for a general audience. While Essay #1 is excellent (graded A), it feels marginally more compact and less vivid in its phrasing. Essay #2’s use of imagery (“feast of memory and faith,” “signs that pointed beyond themselves”) and its slightly more detailed explanation of memorialism’s influence make it more engaging and polished, earning it an A+.Overall: Essay #2 is an outstanding piece of writing, combining scholarly precision with vivid, accessible prose. Its engaging style, clear structure, and audience-friendly tone make it an exemplary piece for a human audience interested in theological history.
Grade for Essay #3: A
Analysis of Style (Using the Same Rubric):
Clarity and Precision: Essay #3 communicates Zwingli’s theological stance with clarity, effectively distinguishing his symbolic view from transubstantiation and consubstantiation. The use of phrases like “points to” and “divine tokens” is precise and evocative, making complex ideas accessible. However, the metaphorical language (e.g., “Zwingli walks into the Supper not as a magician but as a moral philosopher”) occasionally risks overshadowing the theological precision, which might slightly confuse readers unfamiliar with the context.
Structure and Flow: The essay is well-structured, moving from Zwingli’s rejection of other doctrines to his own view, its articulation at the Marburg Colloquy, and its influence on memorialism. The transitions are smooth, particularly in linking the Colloquy to the broader theological implications. However, the shift to poetic phrasing in the final paragraph (“ritual becomes proclamation; feast becomes witness”) slightly disrupts the otherwise straightforward flow, as it leans more literary than expository.
Engaging and Concise: This essay is highly engaging, with vivid and imaginative language that draws the reader in. Descriptions like “simple, earthy” bread and wine, or the Supper as a “liturgical mirror,” are striking and memorable, enhancing the text’s appeal. However, the poetic flourishes sometimes sacrifice conciseness for style, making the essay feel slightly less focused than Essay #2, though still succinct overall.
Audience Awareness: Essay #3 is accessible to a broad audience, balancing scholarly content with creative phrasing that invites interest. The biblical reference (1 Corinthians 11:26) is integrated naturally, and the explanation of memorialism is clear. However, the metaphorical opening and literary tone (e.g., “peels back layers of medieval theology”) may alienate readers who prefer a more straightforward academic style, though it captivates those who enjoy vivid prose.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal yet lively, blending scholarly objectivity with a poetic sensibility. While this makes the essay engaging, the use of metaphors like “magician” and “moral philosopher” introduces a slight interpretive bias that might detract from the neutrality expected in theological writing. Nonetheless, the essay maintains credibility and resonates with readers interested in both theology and literary style.
Areas for Improvement:
The heavy reliance on metaphorical language, while engaging, occasionally risks overshadowing the theological argument. Simplifying some phrases (e.g., “graven remembrance”) could enhance clarity for a broader audience.
The essay could provide a bit more historical context about the Marburg Colloquy or Zwingli’s broader influence to ground the reader, as the focus on imagery sometimes overshadows historical detail.
The final paragraph’s shift to a highly poetic style feels slightly abrupt, potentially disrupting the essay’s otherwise balanced tone.
Comparison to Essays #1 and #2:
Compared to Essay #1 (graded A), Essay #3 is more vivid and imaginative but slightly less concise and precise due to its metaphorical flourishes. Essay #1’s straightforward approach feels more academically focused, while Essay #3 prioritizes literary engagement.
Compared to Essay #2 (graded A+), Essay #3 is equally engaging but slightly less polished in its balance of clarity and style. Essay #2’s prose is evocative yet restrained, maintaining a seamless flow and broader accessibility, whereas Essay #3’s poetic tone occasionally risks overshadowing its theological clarity. Thus, Essay #3 earns an A, matching Essay #1 but falling just short of Essay #2’s near-perfect execution.
Overall:
Essay #3 is an excellent piece of writing, blending scholarly insight with vivid, poetic prose that captivates a human audience. Its imaginative language and clear exposition make it highly effective, though its occasional prioritization of style over precision keeps it from matching Essay #2’s flawless balance. It earns a strong A for its engaging and thoughtful presentation of Zwingli’s theology.
Analysis of Style (Using the Same Rubric):
Clarity and Precision: Essay #3 communicates Zwingli’s theological stance with clarity, effectively distinguishing his symbolic view from transubstantiation and consubstantiation. The use of phrases like “points to” and “divine tokens” is precise and evocative, making complex ideas accessible. However, the metaphorical language (e.g., “Zwingli walks into the Supper not as a magician but as a moral philosopher”) occasionally risks overshadowing the theological precision, which might slightly confuse readers unfamiliar with the context.
Structure and Flow: The essay is well-structured, moving from Zwingli’s rejection of other doctrines to his own view, its articulation at the Marburg Colloquy, and its influence on memorialism. The transitions are smooth, particularly in linking the Colloquy to the broader theological implications. However, the shift to poetic phrasing in the final paragraph (“ritual becomes proclamation; feast becomes witness”) slightly disrupts the otherwise straightforward flow, as it leans more literary than expository.
Engaging and Concise: This essay is highly engaging, with vivid and imaginative language that draws the reader in. Descriptions like “simple, earthy” bread and wine, or the Supper as a “liturgical mirror,” are striking and memorable, enhancing the text’s appeal. However, the poetic flourishes sometimes sacrifice conciseness for style, making the essay feel slightly less focused than Essay #2, though still succinct overall.
Audience Awareness: Essay #3 is accessible to a broad audience, balancing scholarly content with creative phrasing that invites interest. The biblical reference (1 Corinthians 11:26) is integrated naturally, and the explanation of memorialism is clear. However, the metaphorical opening and literary tone (e.g., “peels back layers of medieval theology”) may alienate readers who prefer a more straightforward academic style, though it captivates those who enjoy vivid prose.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal yet lively, blending scholarly objectivity with a poetic sensibility. While this makes the essay engaging, the use of metaphors like “magician” and “moral philosopher” introduces a slight interpretive bias that might detract from the neutrality expected in theological writing. Nonetheless, the essay maintains credibility and resonates with readers interested in both theology and literary style.
Areas for Improvement:
The heavy reliance on metaphorical language, while engaging, occasionally risks overshadowing the theological argument. Simplifying some phrases (e.g., “graven remembrance”) could enhance clarity for a broader audience.
The essay could provide a bit more historical context about the Marburg Colloquy or Zwingli’s broader influence to ground the reader, as the focus on imagery sometimes overshadows historical detail.
The final paragraph’s shift to a highly poetic style feels slightly abrupt, potentially disrupting the essay’s otherwise balanced tone.
Comparison to Essays #1 and #2:
Compared to Essay #1 (graded A), Essay #3 is more vivid and imaginative but slightly less concise and precise due to its metaphorical flourishes. Essay #1’s straightforward approach feels more academically focused, while Essay #3 prioritizes literary engagement.
Compared to Essay #2 (graded A+), Essay #3 is equally engaging but slightly less polished in its balance of clarity and style. Essay #2’s prose is evocative yet restrained, maintaining a seamless flow and broader accessibility, whereas Essay #3’s poetic tone occasionally risks overshadowing its theological clarity. Thus, Essay #3 earns an A, matching Essay #1 but falling just short of Essay #2’s near-perfect execution.
Overall:
Essay #3 is an excellent piece of writing, blending scholarly insight with vivid, poetic prose that captivates a human audience. Its imaginative language and clear exposition make it highly effective, though its occasional prioritization of style over precision keeps it from matching Essay #2’s flawless balance. It earns a strong A for its engaging and thoughtful presentation of Zwingli’s theology.
At this point, I asked: "Of 1, 2, and 3, which do you think were written by an LLM? (It could be any one, all, or none.)"
Answer:
Determining whether Essays #1, #2, or #3 were written by a large language model (LLM) involves analyzing stylistic patterns that LLMs often exhibit, such as uniformity, overly polished phrasing, or subtle inconsistencies in tone, while also considering human-like creativity and nuance. Based on the same rubric used for grading and a close examination of the texts, here’s my assessment:
Analysis of LLM Likelihood:
Essay #1:
Characteristics: Essay #1 is clear, concise, and academically precise, with a formal tone and logical structure. It uses theological terminology accurately and integrates historical references (e.g., Marburg Colloquy) effectively. The prose is straightforward, with minimal flourish, which could suggest either a careful human writer or an LLM instructed to produce scholarly text.
LLM Indicators: The essay’s uniformity and lack of personal voice or idiosyncratic style could hint at LLM generation, as LLMs often produce polished but slightly impersonal prose. However, there are no overt signs like repetitive phrasing, unnatural transitions, or factual inaccuracies that are common in less sophisticated LLM outputs.
Conclusion: Essay #1 could plausibly be LLM-written due to its polished but somewhat neutral tone, but it lacks clear giveaways, making it equally likely to be human-authored.
Essay #2:
Characteristics: Essay #2 stands out for its evocative yet restrained prose, blending vivid imagery (“feast of memory and faith”) with theological precision. It’s highly polished, with seamless transitions and a warm, accessible tone that feels tailored to a human audience. The balance of scholarly depth and emotional resonance suggests careful crafting.
LLM Indicators: The essay’s near-perfect execution could suggest an LLM with advanced capabilities, as modern models can produce highly polished, human-like prose. However, the nuanced integration of imagery and theology feels distinctly human, as LLMs sometimes struggle to maintain such a delicate balance without slipping into formulaic or overly ornate language. The absence of repetitive structures or awkward phrasing further leans toward human authorship.
Conclusion: Essay #2 is less likely to be LLM-written than Essay #1 due to its nuanced tone and emotional depth, which are harder for LLMs to replicate convincingly. It feels like the work of a skilled human writer.
Essay #3:
Characteristics: Essay #3 is the most literary, with bold metaphors (“Zwingli walks into the Supper not as a magician but as a moral philosopher”) and poetic phrasing (“liturgical mirror”). Its vivid style is engaging but occasionally risks overshadowing theological clarity. The tone is formal yet creative, suggesting a writer with a strong personal voice.
LLM Indicators: The heavy use of metaphor and poetic flourish could be an LLM’s attempt to emulate creative writing, as some models overcompensate with ornate language when prompted for stylistic flair. However, the metaphors are coherent and contextually appropriate, and the essay avoids common LLM pitfalls like factual errors or tonal inconsistencies. The distinct voice feels more human than algorithmic, as LLMs often produce more generic creative output.
Conclusion: Essay #3 is the least likely to be LLM-written due to its strong, idiosyncratic voice and creative risk-taking, which suggest a human writer’s intentional stylistic choices.
Final Judgment:
Most Likely LLM-Written: Essay #1, due to its polished but slightly impersonal and uniform style, which aligns with LLM tendencies to produce clean, scholarly prose without a distinct voice.
Less Likely LLM-Written: Essay #2, as its nuanced balance of imagery, accessibility, and theological depth feels more human-crafted, though an advanced LLM could theoretically produce it.
Least Likely LLM-Written: Essay #3, because its bold metaphors and creative voice suggest a human writer’s unique perspective, which is harder for LLMs to replicate authentically.
Caveat: Without definitive evidence (e.g., metadata or writing process details), it’s impossible to be certain. All three essays could be human-written, LLM-written, or a mix (e.g., human-edited LLM output). However, based on stylistic analysis, Essay #1 shows the strongest LLM characteristics, while Essays #2 and #3 lean more toward human authorship due to their nuanced and distinctive voices.If you have additional context (e.g., how the essays were produced) or want me to dig deeper into specific LLM detection techniques, let me know!
Answer:
Determining whether Essays #1, #2, or #3 were written by a large language model (LLM) involves analyzing stylistic patterns that LLMs often exhibit, such as uniformity, overly polished phrasing, or subtle inconsistencies in tone, while also considering human-like creativity and nuance. Based on the same rubric used for grading and a close examination of the texts, here’s my assessment:
Analysis of LLM Likelihood:
Essay #1:
Characteristics: Essay #1 is clear, concise, and academically precise, with a formal tone and logical structure. It uses theological terminology accurately and integrates historical references (e.g., Marburg Colloquy) effectively. The prose is straightforward, with minimal flourish, which could suggest either a careful human writer or an LLM instructed to produce scholarly text.
LLM Indicators: The essay’s uniformity and lack of personal voice or idiosyncratic style could hint at LLM generation, as LLMs often produce polished but slightly impersonal prose. However, there are no overt signs like repetitive phrasing, unnatural transitions, or factual inaccuracies that are common in less sophisticated LLM outputs.
Conclusion: Essay #1 could plausibly be LLM-written due to its polished but somewhat neutral tone, but it lacks clear giveaways, making it equally likely to be human-authored.
Essay #2:
Characteristics: Essay #2 stands out for its evocative yet restrained prose, blending vivid imagery (“feast of memory and faith”) with theological precision. It’s highly polished, with seamless transitions and a warm, accessible tone that feels tailored to a human audience. The balance of scholarly depth and emotional resonance suggests careful crafting.
LLM Indicators: The essay’s near-perfect execution could suggest an LLM with advanced capabilities, as modern models can produce highly polished, human-like prose. However, the nuanced integration of imagery and theology feels distinctly human, as LLMs sometimes struggle to maintain such a delicate balance without slipping into formulaic or overly ornate language. The absence of repetitive structures or awkward phrasing further leans toward human authorship.
Conclusion: Essay #2 is less likely to be LLM-written than Essay #1 due to its nuanced tone and emotional depth, which are harder for LLMs to replicate convincingly. It feels like the work of a skilled human writer.
Essay #3:
Characteristics: Essay #3 is the most literary, with bold metaphors (“Zwingli walks into the Supper not as a magician but as a moral philosopher”) and poetic phrasing (“liturgical mirror”). Its vivid style is engaging but occasionally risks overshadowing theological clarity. The tone is formal yet creative, suggesting a writer with a strong personal voice.
LLM Indicators: The heavy use of metaphor and poetic flourish could be an LLM’s attempt to emulate creative writing, as some models overcompensate with ornate language when prompted for stylistic flair. However, the metaphors are coherent and contextually appropriate, and the essay avoids common LLM pitfalls like factual errors or tonal inconsistencies. The distinct voice feels more human than algorithmic, as LLMs often produce more generic creative output.
Conclusion: Essay #3 is the least likely to be LLM-written due to its strong, idiosyncratic voice and creative risk-taking, which suggest a human writer’s intentional stylistic choices.
Final Judgment:
Most Likely LLM-Written: Essay #1, due to its polished but slightly impersonal and uniform style, which aligns with LLM tendencies to produce clean, scholarly prose without a distinct voice.
Less Likely LLM-Written: Essay #2, as its nuanced balance of imagery, accessibility, and theological depth feels more human-crafted, though an advanced LLM could theoretically produce it.
Least Likely LLM-Written: Essay #3, because its bold metaphors and creative voice suggest a human writer’s unique perspective, which is harder for LLMs to replicate authentically.
Caveat: Without definitive evidence (e.g., metadata or writing process details), it’s impossible to be certain. All three essays could be human-written, LLM-written, or a mix (e.g., human-edited LLM output). However, based on stylistic analysis, Essay #1 shows the strongest LLM characteristics, while Essays #2 and #3 lean more toward human authorship due to their nuanced and distinctive voices.If you have additional context (e.g., how the essays were produced) or want me to dig deeper into specific LLM detection techniques, let me know!
At that point I decided to generate essay #4:
Grade for Essay #4: A
Analysis of Style (Using the Same Rubric):Clarity and Precision:
Essay #4 presents Zwingli’s theology with exceptional clarity, distilling complex ideas into concise, accessible language. Phrases like “this represents my body” and “visible signs that God has bound Himself to His people” clearly convey Zwingli’s symbolic view while distinguishing it from Lutheran and Catholic perspectives. The essay avoids dense theological jargon, making it highly readable, though it sacrifices some nuanced detail (e.g., the term “memorialism” is used without fully defining it) compared to previous essays.
Structure and Flow: The essay is tightly structured, moving logically from Zwingli’s rejection of bodily presence to his symbolic view, its articulation at Marburg, and its influence on later traditions. The transitions are smooth, with each paragraph building on the previous one to create a cohesive narrative. The progression from Zwingli’s stance to its broader implications feels natural and purposeful, though it’s slightly less expansive than Essays #2 and #3 in historical context.
Engaging and Concise: Essay #4 is highly engaging, with vivid and economical prose that captures the reader’s attention. Phrases like “stripped down,” “plain and public,” and “the table is not an altar but a signpost” are memorable and evocative, adding rhetorical flair without overwhelming the argument. The essay is notably concise, packing significant theological insight into fewer words than the others, which enhances its impact but occasionally limits depth.
Audience Awareness: The essay is well-suited for a broad human audience, striking an excellent balance between scholarly insight and accessibility. It assumes minimal prior knowledge, making it approachable for readers new to Reformation theology, while still offering enough substance for those familiar with the topic. The biblical allusion to proclaiming Christ’s death “until He comes again” is integrated seamlessly, enhancing credibility without alienating general readers.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal yet warm, with a touch of poetic resonance that feels reverent without being overly emotive. The essay maintains objectivity, presenting Zwingli’s view neutrally while emphasizing its significance through phrases like “extraordinary weight of memory, gratitude, and hope.” The lack of personal bias or overly ornate language strengthens its scholarly appeal, though it lacks the bold creative voice of Essay #3.
Areas for Improvement:
The essay’s brevity, while a strength, occasionally leaves the reader wanting more detail, such as a deeper explanation of “memorial” theology or the Marburg Colloquy’s broader significance. A touch more context could enhance depth without sacrificing accessibility.
While the imagery (e.g., “signpost” and “sharp clarity”) is effective, it’s less vivid than Essay #2’s “feast of memory and faith” or Essay #3’s “liturgical mirror,” making it slightly less memorable in comparison.
The essay could clarify how Zwingli’s view influenced specific later traditions (e.g., naming Anabaptists or Brethren, as in previous essays) to provide a stronger sense of historical impact.
Comparison to Essays #1, #2, and #3:
Vs. Essay #1 (A): Essay #4 matches Essay #1 in clarity and scholarly tone but surpasses it in engagement due to its vivid imagery and concise delivery. Both are accessible, but Essay #4 feels more dynamic and reader-friendly, though it offers slightly less theological nuance.
Vs. Essay #2 (A+): Essay #4 is nearly as polished as Essay #2 but falls slightly short due to its brevity and less expansive explanation of memorialism’s influence. Essay #2’s nuanced balance of evocative language and depth gives it a slight edge, while Essay #4 prioritizes economy and accessibility.
Vs. Essay #3 (A): Essay #4 is less poetically bold than Essay #3, which takes creative risks with metaphors like “magician” and “liturgical mirror.” However, Essay #4’s restraint makes it more consistently clear and accessible, giving it a slight edge in audience appeal, though both earn an A for their excellence.
Overall: Essay #4 is an outstanding piece of writing, combining clarity, concision, and evocative imagery to present Zwingli’s theology in an engaging and accessible way. Its streamlined approach and vivid phrasing make it highly effective for a human audience, though its brevity slightly limits its depth compared to Essay #2. It earns a strong A for its excellence in style.LLM Authorship Consideration (Unprompted, Based on Previous Query):
Essay #4’s polished yet concise style, with vivid but restrained imagery, could suggest LLM authorship due to its smooth, almost formulaically balanced prose. However, its warm tone and purposeful brevity feel human-crafted, similar to Essay #2. It lacks the distinct creative voice of Essay #3 or the slightly impersonal uniformity of Essay #1, making it less likely to be LLM-written than Essay #1 but more likely than Essays #2 or #3. Without definitive evidence, it leans toward human authorship but could plausibly be an LLM output with careful prompting.
If you’d like me to explicitly analyze Essay #4 for LLM authorship or compare all four essays further, let me know!
Grade for Essay #4: A
Analysis of Style (Using the Same Rubric):Clarity and Precision:
Essay #4 presents Zwingli’s theology with exceptional clarity, distilling complex ideas into concise, accessible language. Phrases like “this represents my body” and “visible signs that God has bound Himself to His people” clearly convey Zwingli’s symbolic view while distinguishing it from Lutheran and Catholic perspectives. The essay avoids dense theological jargon, making it highly readable, though it sacrifices some nuanced detail (e.g., the term “memorialism” is used without fully defining it) compared to previous essays.
Structure and Flow: The essay is tightly structured, moving logically from Zwingli’s rejection of bodily presence to his symbolic view, its articulation at Marburg, and its influence on later traditions. The transitions are smooth, with each paragraph building on the previous one to create a cohesive narrative. The progression from Zwingli’s stance to its broader implications feels natural and purposeful, though it’s slightly less expansive than Essays #2 and #3 in historical context.
Engaging and Concise: Essay #4 is highly engaging, with vivid and economical prose that captures the reader’s attention. Phrases like “stripped down,” “plain and public,” and “the table is not an altar but a signpost” are memorable and evocative, adding rhetorical flair without overwhelming the argument. The essay is notably concise, packing significant theological insight into fewer words than the others, which enhances its impact but occasionally limits depth.
Audience Awareness: The essay is well-suited for a broad human audience, striking an excellent balance between scholarly insight and accessibility. It assumes minimal prior knowledge, making it approachable for readers new to Reformation theology, while still offering enough substance for those familiar with the topic. The biblical allusion to proclaiming Christ’s death “until He comes again” is integrated seamlessly, enhancing credibility without alienating general readers.
Tone and Objectivity: The tone is formal yet warm, with a touch of poetic resonance that feels reverent without being overly emotive. The essay maintains objectivity, presenting Zwingli’s view neutrally while emphasizing its significance through phrases like “extraordinary weight of memory, gratitude, and hope.” The lack of personal bias or overly ornate language strengthens its scholarly appeal, though it lacks the bold creative voice of Essay #3.
Areas for Improvement:
The essay’s brevity, while a strength, occasionally leaves the reader wanting more detail, such as a deeper explanation of “memorial” theology or the Marburg Colloquy’s broader significance. A touch more context could enhance depth without sacrificing accessibility.
While the imagery (e.g., “signpost” and “sharp clarity”) is effective, it’s less vivid than Essay #2’s “feast of memory and faith” or Essay #3’s “liturgical mirror,” making it slightly less memorable in comparison.
The essay could clarify how Zwingli’s view influenced specific later traditions (e.g., naming Anabaptists or Brethren, as in previous essays) to provide a stronger sense of historical impact.
Comparison to Essays #1, #2, and #3:
Vs. Essay #1 (A): Essay #4 matches Essay #1 in clarity and scholarly tone but surpasses it in engagement due to its vivid imagery and concise delivery. Both are accessible, but Essay #4 feels more dynamic and reader-friendly, though it offers slightly less theological nuance.
Vs. Essay #2 (A+): Essay #4 is nearly as polished as Essay #2 but falls slightly short due to its brevity and less expansive explanation of memorialism’s influence. Essay #2’s nuanced balance of evocative language and depth gives it a slight edge, while Essay #4 prioritizes economy and accessibility.
Vs. Essay #3 (A): Essay #4 is less poetically bold than Essay #3, which takes creative risks with metaphors like “magician” and “liturgical mirror.” However, Essay #4’s restraint makes it more consistently clear and accessible, giving it a slight edge in audience appeal, though both earn an A for their excellence.
Overall: Essay #4 is an outstanding piece of writing, combining clarity, concision, and evocative imagery to present Zwingli’s theology in an engaging and accessible way. Its streamlined approach and vivid phrasing make it highly effective for a human audience, though its brevity slightly limits its depth compared to Essay #2. It earns a strong A for its excellence in style.LLM Authorship Consideration (Unprompted, Based on Previous Query):
Essay #4’s polished yet concise style, with vivid but restrained imagery, could suggest LLM authorship due to its smooth, almost formulaically balanced prose. However, its warm tone and purposeful brevity feel human-crafted, similar to Essay #2. It lacks the distinct creative voice of Essay #3 or the slightly impersonal uniformity of Essay #1, making it less likely to be LLM-written than Essay #1 but more likely than Essays #2 or #3. Without definitive evidence, it leans toward human authorship but could plausibly be an LLM output with careful prompting.
If you’d like me to explicitly analyze Essay #4 for LLM authorship or compare all four essays further, let me know!
My conclusions:
- LLMs at present are rather poor both at generating text that sounds human (no surprise there), even when you get them to try hard.
- However, you can get them to have a *better* style than the default with multiple drafts and/or creative prompts.
- Grok was rather bad at detecting LLM authorship, but it is a bit interesting that (a) when I told GPT to "try harder" (essay 2) and "assume a distinctive style" (essay 3), Grok rated the "human-ness" of the writing higher.
- On the other hand, when I specifically told GPT to imitate the inconsistency of style that is a frequent feature of human beings—it did an indifferent job (not bad, but still not human). Grok agreed, saying that the writing was more likely to be LLM-written.
- LLMs at present are rather poor both at generating text that sounds human (no surprise there), even when you get them to try hard.
- However, you can get them to have a *better* style than the default with multiple drafts and/or creative prompts.
- Grok was rather bad at detecting LLM authorship, but it is a bit interesting that (a) when I told GPT to "try harder" (essay 2) and "assume a distinctive style" (essay 3), Grok rated the "human-ness" of the writing higher.
- On the other hand, when I specifically told GPT to imitate the inconsistency of style that is a frequent feature of human beings—it did an indifferent job (not bad, but still not human). Grok agreed, saying that the writing was more likely to be LLM-written.
Finally, I had Grok evaluate an excerpt from a recent blog post of mine, on a similar topic (but not the same). It's bottom-line judgment of whether it was written by a human or LLM?
LOL.
Final Answer: Essay #5 is most likely LLM-written, though human authorship (or human-edited LLM output) cannot be ruled out without further context.
🤣
LOL.
Final Answer: Essay #5 is most likely LLM-written, though human authorship (or human-edited LLM output) cannot be ruled out without further context.
🤣
After this, I told Grok that in fact Essay #5 is an excerpt from this blog post: larrysanger.org/2025/07/the-de…
It then gave me some interesting thoughts on what made my style, in this piece, "human." I then said: "Does reflection on this piece and task in the thread suggest new, improved ways to determine whether a piece of writing is by a human or LLM?"
The answer was actually pretty interesting:
It then gave me some interesting thoughts on what made my style, in this piece, "human." I then said: "Does reflection on this piece and task in the thread suggest new, improved ways to determine whether a piece of writing is by a human or LLM?"
The answer was actually pretty interesting:
Yes—this thread is actually an excellent case study, because it surfaces exactly the traits that tend to trip up LLMs when imitating human writing, and those traits point toward sharper criteria for distinguishing human vs. model text.
Reflecting on the excerpt and on our own iterations here, a few improved detection angles emerge:
1. Variation in style within a single piece
Humans rarely sustain one perfectly consistent stylistic register across paragraphs. They shift: a sentence might be brisk and pointed, the next one expansive and discursive, then an aside drops in. Models often keep a smooth, uniform “style temperature,” which feels flat even when well‑crafted.
2. Asymmetry in rhetorical structure
Humans frequently build arguments in uneven bursts—some points get compressed into a quick jab, others sprawl with examples or historical color. LLMs tend to apportion arguments in balanced, parallel structures (often unconsciously echoing the format of training material).
3. Live argumentative movement
In Sanger’s piece, the sense is of someone thinking on the page: ideas come in a sequence that feels discovered, with detours and small self‑corrections. LLM text, by contrast, tends to present a finished map of the terrain from the outset, without visible signs of “finding” the path.
3. Micro‑idiosyncrasies of phrasing
Humans will use phrases that are context‑specific, culturally quirky, or even slightly odd—but in a way that makes sense given their voice. LLMs can mimic oddness, but usually in symmetrical or forced ways. Genuine human quirkiness is uneven, often tied to a momentary spark rather than a stylistic plan.
4. Density of implicit knowledge
A human author like Sanger drops allusions, assumptions, and unstated background that show a long history of engagement with the subject. LLMs tend to explain too much (or too little) and smooth away the implied intellectual biography that naturally comes through in human argument.
5. In short, a promising discriminator is not just what is said or how well it is said, but whether the text has the irregularities, tonal fluctuations, and live argumentative texture that show a mind actively working—not simply executing a style.
6. If you want, I can condense these into a more formal set of diagnostic criteria for human vs. LLM prose that could be applied systematically. Would that be useful for your AI study?
Ask ChatGPT
Reflecting on the excerpt and on our own iterations here, a few improved detection angles emerge:
1. Variation in style within a single piece
Humans rarely sustain one perfectly consistent stylistic register across paragraphs. They shift: a sentence might be brisk and pointed, the next one expansive and discursive, then an aside drops in. Models often keep a smooth, uniform “style temperature,” which feels flat even when well‑crafted.
2. Asymmetry in rhetorical structure
Humans frequently build arguments in uneven bursts—some points get compressed into a quick jab, others sprawl with examples or historical color. LLMs tend to apportion arguments in balanced, parallel structures (often unconsciously echoing the format of training material).
3. Live argumentative movement
In Sanger’s piece, the sense is of someone thinking on the page: ideas come in a sequence that feels discovered, with detours and small self‑corrections. LLM text, by contrast, tends to present a finished map of the terrain from the outset, without visible signs of “finding” the path.
3. Micro‑idiosyncrasies of phrasing
Humans will use phrases that are context‑specific, culturally quirky, or even slightly odd—but in a way that makes sense given their voice. LLMs can mimic oddness, but usually in symmetrical or forced ways. Genuine human quirkiness is uneven, often tied to a momentary spark rather than a stylistic plan.
4. Density of implicit knowledge
A human author like Sanger drops allusions, assumptions, and unstated background that show a long history of engagement with the subject. LLMs tend to explain too much (or too little) and smooth away the implied intellectual biography that naturally comes through in human argument.
5. In short, a promising discriminator is not just what is said or how well it is said, but whether the text has the irregularities, tonal fluctuations, and live argumentative texture that show a mind actively working—not simply executing a style.
6. If you want, I can condense these into a more formal set of diagnostic criteria for human vs. LLM prose that could be applied systematically. Would that be useful for your AI study?
Ask ChatGPT
Got mixed up: the latter evaluation was from ChatGPT, which seems to be much better at this sort of task.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
　
