Well, I have checked with multiple tools, and they all seem to confirm the same thing.

I am aware that these bots are not infallible, they even tell me themselves that they could be wrong. But several all agreeing that your content is about 67% AI generated? That's unlikely.

To be clear, I'm not 'assessing'. I'm just pointing it out.

Might I refer you to the following post, written by me.

I wrote this partly in response to the AI explosion. This entire platform is a blogging platform. So, I think we can agree that it's not an academic journal or an encyclopedia.

To protect us from an AI invasion, I am trying to emphasise to everybody to write with style. To bring yourself out in a blog so you may never be mistaken by a bot, as a bot.

Plus, it's just more fun to write that way.

Your post content here it little more than a WebMD article or encyclopedia entry. No stories, no humour, no anecdotes, no fascinating examples. Just a dictionary entry. I don't mean to be rude but this holds very little value when people can just google 'bronchitis'. Why would they want to read your version of bronchitis?

In short, you wrote exactly what an AI bot would produce when asked; no surprise ChatGPT decided it was 'likely' written by a bot. If you wanna write like that, of course feel free.

But, it does come with a risk of being seen as AI, and whatever action different people might take due to that.

Again, totally up to you what you do with this information. It's a new world we're dealing with suddenly, but with Bots doing all our jobs for us, we gotta bring something new to the table, not re-gurgitated posts about bronchitis

I am, as you can probably tell, on a warpath to fix the content of STEMsocial and Hive in general to be more blog-like, and less academic journal-like