I swear I must be awful at reading voice. There's nothing that makes it even remotely obvious to me other than the certainty that an AI-detection AI would have detected it as AI-written. Are there any passages you can point to and explain how you observe it as ChatGPT-written?
I wouldn't have noticed without the disclaimer, but it's quite poorly written, in a glossy, vapid sense. It bounces between personal comments and sweeping, overwrought generalizations.
> This is the democratization of design at its core – a shift from an exclusive club of skilled builders to a universal playground where anyone with a passion for LEGO can partake in the creation process. In this vein, the intersection of AI and LEGO is not just a meeting of technology and toy but a union of futures and pasts, of pixels and plastic – a synergy that promises to craft not just models, but bridges between ages, cultures, and the myriad dimensions of human creativity
Brevity is the soul of wit, and ChatGPT struggles with it.
GPT-written texts tend to read like a verbose average of everything it was trained on. If you've come across a lot of SEO filler text, it reads exactly the same.
It would be cool to see an AI powered LEGO set design suite. First generate the cover image, then generate a low res 3d point cloud, calculate the individual LEGO pieces, analyze the structural integrity with specialized tools, and select portions of the model to regenerate/iterate. Then calculate the cost of the model base on listings from sites like bricklink.
Off topic: the ai generated language hallucinations are fascinating to me because they remind me so much of what language looks like when I try to read a book when I’m dreaming. Pure nonsense.
These AI pictures kind of make real Lego seem almost disappointing. I'd probably be a lot more into the adult Lego stuff if you could really do things like this, but it would be like 70% specialized pieces and not really Lego anymore.
This disclaimer wasn't necessary, it was very obvious.