Employers: Your AI-Detection Checker May Be Bogus

 So, if you can't detect that it was written by AI, how do you expect a computer to do it for you? There was a person who posted a job stating s/he would be using several AI detection programs to ensure that if you were using ChatGPT, you were, at least, "humanizing" it. Well, I decided to take the garbage ChatGPT put out for me and check it. Here's what I got: 

Grammarly: 

Said the AI work was 100% written by a human. Granted, this is supposed to be for writers checking to see if their AI generated work will pass, but I would not use it. I have paid for a subscription to Grammarly in the past ($30/mo) to check for typos. It did a good job of that, but it would not let me choose which style manual I wanted to use for each check. Since different style manuals have different rules, it would sometimes flag me for a typo when it was not. I also did not feel the plagiarism checker was that great and so I used a different service for that. 

Quillbot 

Actually detected the AI generated writing and my writing correctly. The free checker allows up to 25,000 words. They also offer other free services and paid services for $19.95/mo.

ZeroGPT Said only 80% of the AI generated writing was written by a computer. For my writing it said it was only 1.72% AI generated. Only allows 15,000 characters for free. Paid plans are $7.99/$18.99 per month.

Merlin  Similar results to ZeroGPT. This one only gives you three free credits and a max of 10,000 characters each time. It costs $15 per month to get full access--which I had to click my "credits" button to see--and more expensive plans exist.

GPTZero Correctly detected AI generated writing as being 100% AI. They were sure that my writing was human--but it was a 3% chance it was generated by AI. This one only allowed 5000 characters without signing up. For $10/mo you can process 150,000 words each month. There are more expensive pricing plans as well.

Copyleaks Does not give you a percentage--it just says AI generated or not. It correctly identified the AI and mine. The AI detector alone is $7.99/mo.

Undetectable AI This one said the AI generated writing was likely written by a human. They are selling an AI humanizer so it makes sense their detector would say an AI generated text is human. 

Phrasly AI Said only 80% of the AI generated writing was written by a computer. For mine, it was 100% sure it was written by a human. They only let you do 2000 words per check. This is another AI "humanizer." 

Leap Said the AI text was "possibly" written by a human and gave 57%. My content was "very likely human" with a score of 16%. They allowed 20,000 characters. They are also in the business of generating AI content. 

Originality AI This one said the AI content was 100% written by a computer and accurately said mine was 100% human. This website gives you three free scans (less than 300 words each), but it requires a credit card to use it. You can pay $60 for 600,000 scanned words that expire in 2 years if unused or pay $15.95/ $136.58 for the two monthly plans.

Brandwell (formerly Content at Scale): This predicted the AI content and human content for me but did horrible in tests below. They only allow 5000 characters to test their detector. At $249/month for 1-user, I don't think its worth it.

GPT-2 Output Detector Demo: This said the ChatGPT article was 99% real. It also said my work was 99% real. This is open source, but I am not seeing a benefit to using it because its results are highly variable.

Turnitin: I did not test this myself because they do not have a place to test their software on the website. You have to contact an agent to get any information. They also don't have prices posted that I could find because they have a monopoly on schools--and they probably shouldn't. However, this tool was tested here. The results are concerning because 100% human produced content was flagged as AI 11% of the time, and this is the tool most teachers use. It is very important for teachers getting a positive with this software to double check the content a couple of other places. Or--better yet--why don't we just train our teachers to detect garbage? When a high school student turns in garbage, make him/her redo it. Ask questions in the margins that must be answered by the student or addressed in the redo. Make the student redo it during class without a computer. (Whoa--writing something by hand--scary.) If s/he did the research, recalling important points without looking them up is necessary. I, personally, believe making students redo poor work (1) teaches them to do it better because they have to apply what the teacher criticized; (2) if they end up having to do the work any way, AI generated schoolwork does not help them; (3) it is possible that some students do write as bad as AI--they will probably grow up to be computer programmers--why fail them for skills they never learned solely on the basis of another computer program?

In a recent study using five of the above, Originality.ai was 100% accurate for AI but 10% of the human written were classified as AI, Turnitin had huge variability--ironically none of the human generated articles were flagged and Turnitin is notorious for flagging human work as AI generated. GPT-2 Output detector did awful for me, but in the study it apparently performed well. GPTZero, which did well in my limited test, did awful in the study along with Content at Scale (which is now Brandwell). Like my tests, these five in the study were only tested in one subject. Notably, humans trained to look for AI scored 96%. 

I discussed the biggest problem with these AI detectors being used in academics, but in freelancing, they can also cause problems. For an employer to use these tools to solely decide if a person should be paid for their work or not is just as wrong as the teachers who fail students based on them. If you read the article and it sounds fine to you, does it matter the source? I have no clue how an AI-generated article could sound fine, but if you think it's okay, there shouldn't be a problem. If you do have a problem with the work, I would take the same approach as the teacher--make the freelancer rewrite it and include questions and critique. 

I allow two free rewrites for my work (I can't think of a time when someone asked me for a second). Every freelancer should allow at least one--make sure you are upfront in asking about this. However, if the freelancer can fix the issues, the should be allowed a chance to do so before you refuse to pay. This is why I like Guru's SafePay--the freelancer will get paid if s/he does the work and you will get your money back if s/he does not.

Bad Jobs 3

 Wanted: Freelancer to create a plein air landscape watercolor painting of a scene that includes ocean cliffs with an "aquatic beast," a fjord, and a beach with crustaceans skittering across it. It can be a fantasy landscape.

Soooo, the definition of "plein air" is to take your easel somewhere and paint quickly, capturing the lighting of that exact moment. I wonder how this employer expects his freelancer to travel to such a specific landscape and capture specific animals or "beasts"? I especially wonder how the freelancer would get to a fantasy realm to paint it in the moment...

Categorizing Your Job

Many employers don't know what they want. This is often evident in the vague or meandering requests they post. Some freelancers may ask questions or bid on these because if they think they can figure it out after a conversation with the employer. However, lately I have been seeing a lot of mis-categorized posts. This presents a big problem because most freelancers do not skim every category when looking for work. 

Guru has the following categories: 

Programming & Development

Design & Art

Writing & Translation

Administrative & Secretarial

Business & Finance

Sales & Marketing

Engineering & Architecture

Legal

Education & Training

Other

Programming and Development has to do with computer programming. If you need a website developed or coding adjusted, this is where the job should go. Still, people will post "Create a Website for Me" jobs in Writing & Translation. If you want website content (i.e. the written words that go on the website), Writing & Translation would be the right spot, but if you want the overall layout and the coding that goes into that layout, you should stick with a developer. Along the same lines, some people put website design jobs in the Design & Art category--which is not really what they need. 

Design & Art is for imagery. If you need something photoshopped, you would not send it to a computer programmer, it needs to go to a visual designer. A book cover design should be posted here and not in Writing & Translation. A business logo would also be here--not in the Business & Finance section. 

Writing & Translation is for writing, rewriting, editing, formatting documents, and obviously having things translated. One person wanted a copyrighted document rewritten and posted it in "legal" because he wanted it done legally. Legal is for legal advice--not fixing plagiarism or lifting someone else's work and recreating it so it isn't plagiarized. Every freelancing author should know how to do this legally. However, trying to hire a lawyer or paralegal to fix plagiarism will not work because that isn't their specialty, unless they also specialize in writing. The irony is that I charge a lot more for fixing plagiarism than I do for say, editing something. I'm sure some people think they can get a better deal by lifting something and changing it-and it's true there is AI that rewrites things for you, but I have never tested that and I am not sure how good it is. Grant writing also falls here. 

Administrative & Secretarial also seems to get a lot of Writing & Translating jobs. In general, secretaries, HR people, assistants, medical coding, customer service, clerks, data entry, receptionists, administrators, etc. fit in this category. These are unskilled writers to some extent. For example, they may write a letter, write a memo, or enter data that has already been written. You would not ask them to write your business story or a press release because their writing skills are probably not up to the task. You also would not ask for a business plan here. That would go in Business & Finance.

Business & Finance is for accounting jobs, auditors, analysts, management, fundraisers, market research analysis, logistics, financial advisors, event planners, and logisticians. Estimators might be found here or in Engineering & Architectural (if you are looking for construction estimates--supply chain estimates for other industries would only be here). These people help others run businesses. 

Sales & Marketing should be self-explanatory. If you want to market your book, these people should be able to help you. Yes, a book marketer might be also found in Writing & Translation, but if a person does marketing, presumably they will also check under this heading. Sales consultants would also be here. 

Engineering & Architecture would be product designers and creators. This is where you could get 3D images and CAD drawings for your product or building. You could consult these people on patent papers, but you should also talk with someone in legal once the item is created. 

Legal is for legal advice. You plagiarized someone, and they are taking you to court. What is the quickest way out of this? If you need a contract written up or a will, this is where you could find freelancers who specialize in that work. 

Education & Training is for people looking for tutors for school--although I don't know why you would go to Guru for that. Wyzant has a much better selection. It is also for people who want to develop a training course. Creating training videos could go here or in Other. Library technicians, teachers, guidance counsellors, executive coaches, fitness trainers, life coaches, people who can teach you how to use MS Word or how to code in JAVA. This is where you would find freelancers who want to teach.

Other is unfortunately a category that contains all sorts of jobs and usually many of these would be better classified in one of the above categories. If you are looking for actors, video editors, clothing manufacturing, established live-streamers who can present your product, researchers, app testers, temporary event staff, chemist, etc. Basically anything that doesn't fit in any of the above categories, except people post a mishmash of jobs that do. 

Posting your job in the wrong category means the right freelancer may not see it. For example, I do design as well as writing and translation and I do video editing, so I check Other and Design & Art frequently, but I do not check Administrative & Secretarial. That means if you posted your book editing job there, I will never see it. Further, the people who will see it and bid on it, are probably not qualified to do so.

Teacher Wall of Shame 3

 So here is a teacher, who presumably teaches English, and has posted on her website about correcting vague pronouns. The problem is that either she does not understand the concept herself (most probable) or she has relied too much on other websites to explain it for her. Her statements are that "this" is a vague pronoun and needs to be turned into an adjective and followed by a noun to clarify a sentence. That statement in itself is not necessarily wrong--at least I can't think of an example where "this" should not be followed by a noun at the moment. However, her limitation of specific pronouns as being "vague" is wrong. "She" is not on her list, but it most certainly can be a vague pronoun. Consider these horrible sentences:

Sally and Megan went to school. She rode a bike while she walked. 

Who rode the bike? Who walked? It is obvious that "she," used in this context, is vague. In most cases authors don't realize they are committing this error because they know what they are talking about. In these cases, most readers assume what is being referred to by the pronoun correctly.

The experiment was performed in Toby's backyard. It was fenced in to keep onlookers out.

Was the experiment fenced in or was Toby's backyard fenced in? Most people would assume it was the backyard, but if Toby did not have a fence around his backyard, then temporarily fencing in the experiment would be easier than doing the whole thing. Now, where I could not think of an example of 
"this is" that was not vague. I most certainly can think of an example where "it is" is not, despite the teacher's protestations. 

The experiment will be quick. It is found on page 345. 

There is no question as to what "it is" refers in the above sentence. "It is" is not vague because the only thing to which it could refer is "the experiment." 

Perhaps the above teacher was sick the day they taught this at her school, but that is no excuse for misinforming her students about it. She needs to figure out what vague pronouns are. Part of her problem is that she went to https://www.aje.com and https://writingcommons.org/ Both of these websites are advertising their own paid writing courses and editing services. Why would they explain anything clearly to anyone? They want you to pay them to do it. Ironically, it seems the Writing Commons link is broken, probably because they lifted the sentence they used from an state university website worksheet: https://www.unh.edu/student-success/sites/default/files/media/2022-07/resources-vague-pronouns-writing.pdf If you go to that worksheet, you will find an excellent, brief definition for vague pronouns. 

Bad Jobs 2

Here's another winner: The employer wants someone to record themselves doing a forward roll for 1-3 minutes. The longer you can do it--the more you can make. Apparently, there are people who have decided to become long distance somersaulters. I, like the guy who wrote that, would probably be sick. 

The problem I have with this request, even though it has some legitimacy, is that the person says it is for a fitness program and it was needed before the school year started. This is not necessarily something I think kids should be trying for as a fitness goal. What's wrong with running or even walking, which most people would see as being more normal if they were to meet you doing it on the street? Also, why do you have to keep going for 3 minutes? Once you demonstrate it, it should be good enough for the kids. Further, no mechanics of how to do the roll was requested to be included. 

Part of me wants to think that this is just some well-meaning person wanting to start a new fad, but there is just too much that makes me think its someone with an odd fetish. For example, only fit, female somersaulters were told to apply. 

Granted, when I first started, I would go head-over-heels for easy jobs like this. But as I gotten older and not been able to find any of those projects on the web (I usually can track down my work), I have become more cynical and think they might not have used those things as they were intended. This also comes from the one project I did that I was able to track down. This woman I worked for swore up and down she was not writing erotica (I do not work on erotica projects). However, I had to remove a lot of sex from the original content. I gave it back to her and later found she not only added all the sex back in but also listed it as a XXX book!!  These days when I get the feeling that something is not right, I back out. This is why my contract has a clause in it saying I can stop working at any time I deem the project to be unethical.

Insecurity

 Okay, so I have a pretty big head. I know I am trained to write. I am confident in my writing skills, and I feel I put out some pretty good stuff. I even go back over my stuff and find spots where I pat myself on the back and tell myself those were genius.

However, the moment I finish a project and hand it over to an employer is the moment the nerves in my stomach start to build. I like my work, and my employer must have liked my work enough to hire me, but I am never 100% certain he or she will be happy with what I produce. 

In the course of my career, I have had people who were not happy. In most cases, I can fix it with my first rewrite. In some cases, it did not reflect the quality of my work but rather the ignorance of the person hiring me. One person complained because I could not put a square image on a kindle page. I did not distort the image at all, I merely trimmed it and slightly changed the placement of some of the text. Without changing the ratio, the image would have shrunk and only filled half the screen. She was irate. 

The other one was a guy who had written a screenplay. This guy was in the business of making school posters. He had no writing or film experience. All he wanted was for me to give him my opinion of the screenplay. I did--it was awful. He then called me and cussed me out for 30 minutes. He told me every other freelancer he had hired thought it was amazing. I told him it couldn't be produced as written. He said he had an "in" with the Navy so he knew it would be produced. (This was a work of fiction that mildly referenced the Navy, by the way.) It was big and ugly, and it didn't help on my end that after he berated me, I charged him full price instead of the discount I had originally given him. Sorry, if you want to cuss me out and berate me, I charge extra.

Needless to say, despite the rave reviews from all the other freelancers he hired, I have never seen this movie produced. 

Anyway, until I get feedback I sit waiting anxiously for some. Today, I am distracting myself by working on something else.

Why ChatGPT Is Not a Writing Tool

I have actually had people tell me ChatGPT is a great story writing tool (among other things). So, I decided to give it the writing prompt I came up with as an example for another post: "Write a 1,500 word story about two raccoons who go into a restaurant." The first thing you should note is that I asked for a "story" and ChatGPT gave me an essay--and it knows that is what it gives me because it says so in the first paragraph. This is the unedited response it gave me: 

Title: The Tale of Two Raccoons: An Unlikely Restaurant Encounter

Introduction

In the world of storytelling, some scenarios stretch the bounds of imagination and reality, and the tale of two raccoons walking into a restaurant is one such imaginative adventure. This whimsical scenario, while far from ordinary, invites a deeper exploration into themes of curiosity, adaptation, and the unexpected intersections of nature and human environments. This essay delves into the narrative of these two raccoons as they navigate a human establishment, shedding light on both the humor and the underlying commentary of this unusual situation.

Setting the Scene

Imagine a cozy restaurant nestled in a bustling city, a place where the aroma of gourmet dishes mingles with the soft hum of conversation and clinking cutlery. The establishment prides itself on its welcoming atmosphere and diverse clientele. It is here, in this very restaurant, that our story begins. As the door swings open, two raccoons enter, their striped tails and masked faces standing out starkly against the backdrop of fine dining. The sight of these nocturnal creatures in a human eatery is both surreal and intriguing, challenging the boundaries of normalcy and inviting both the patrons and the staff into a moment of peculiar wonder.

The Raccoons' Perspective

From the raccoons' perspective, this restaurant is a realm of sensory overload. The interior, with its polished wooden tables and ambient lighting, contrasts sharply with their natural habitat—forest floors and urban alleyways. The raccoons, driven by their inquisitive nature and innate intelligence, exhibit a mixture of curiosity and caution. Their heightened senses of smell and hearing pick up on the rich tapestry of scents and sounds, making the restaurant a new and exciting landscape to explore.

The raccoons approach the tables with an almost deliberate intent. Their nimble paws, accustomed to foraging and manipulating objects, now encounter an array of human artifacts. They are particularly intrigued by the plates and utensils, which seem to offer a tantalizing array of new textures and shapes. This interaction highlights the raccoons' adaptability and problem-solving skills, as they attempt to understand and engage with their unfamiliar surroundings.

The Restaurant's Reaction

The reaction of the restaurant staff and patrons is one of initial shock, followed by a mix of amusement and bemusement. The sight of raccoons—creatures typically associated with trash cans and night-time scavenging—inside a refined dining setting is unexpected and surreal. The staff, caught off guard, initially responds with a blend of confusion and concern, unsure of how to address the situation without disrupting the dining experience for other guests.

One might imagine the restaurant manager, a composed and professional individual, momentarily grappling with the situation before deciding on a course of action. The manager's response may involve a delicate balance of diplomacy and practicality. Efforts might be made to gently guide the raccoons outside, all while maintaining the dignity of the establishment and ensuring that the patrons remain entertained rather than distressed by the unusual visitors.

Interactions with Humans

As the raccoons continue their exploration, their interactions with the humans in the restaurant become a focal point of the narrative. Children, ever the enthusiasts of animal encounters, might be particularly enchanted by the sight of the raccoons. Their innocent wonder contrasts sharply with the more reserved reactions of adults, who may react with a mix of fascination and skepticism.

Some patrons might view the raccoons' presence as a delightful anomaly, a story to share and remember. Others, however, might find the situation unsettling, reflecting a broader theme of how human societies often struggle with the intrusion of the wild into their carefully curated spaces. This tension between nature and civilization becomes a subtle undercurrent in the narrative, highlighting the delicate balance that exists between human environments and the natural world.

Symbolism and Themes

The encounter of the two raccoons in the restaurant serves as a rich symbol for several broader themes. One prominent theme is the idea of curiosity and exploration. The raccoons' foray into an unfamiliar environment represents the innate drive to discover and understand the world beyond one's usual boundaries. Their behavior reflects a broader human tendency to seek out new experiences and challenges, often leading to moments of unexpected discovery and growth.

Another theme is the interaction between nature and human civilization. The raccoons' intrusion into the restaurant symbolizes the frequent encroachment of wildlife into human spaces, a phenomenon driven by various factors such as urban expansion and environmental change. This encounter prompts reflection on the impact of human activities on wildlife and the need for greater coexistence and understanding between the two realms.

Conclusion

The tale of the two raccoons walking into a restaurant, while fanciful and humorous, offers a nuanced reflection on curiosity, adaptation, and the intersection of human and natural worlds. It challenges our perceptions of normalcy and invites us to consider the broader implications of such unusual encounters. Through the lens of this whimsical scenario, we gain insight into the complexities of interaction between different species and the delicate balance that must be maintained to ensure harmony between human environments and the natural world. In the end, this narrative not only entertains but also encourages a deeper appreciation for the unexpected moments that arise when nature and civilization converge.

Word Count: 873

This essay was not what I was looking for or expecting. However, upon reading it, I can tell it was definitely written by an unimaginative computer (or perhaps a really bad writer). I also question that if real world raccoons walked into a real world establishment that everyone would be bemusedly watching them. I picture a lot of screaming and running--even on the part of the staff. Does ChatGPT realize these things carry diseases? Further, it is just over half the word count I requested, which means there needs to be a lot of fluff added that will make the story even worse. 

This should just be scrapped and rewritten by a human because most of this is just garbage and repetitive drivel. However, I edited the first few paragraphs so you can see what is wrong: 

Introduction

In the world of storytelling, some scenarios stretch the bounds of imagination and reality, and the tale of two raccoons walking into a restaurant stretches the bounds of realityis one such imaginative adventure. Although the original scenario does stretch the bounds of imagination as well as reality, the realistic scenario ChatGPT spit out does not stretch the bounds of imagination--someone could easily leave a door propped open and two raccoons, smelling food could walk inside. This whimsical scenario while far from ordinary,  redundant with "whimsical" invites a deeper exploration into themes of curiosity, adaptation, and the unexpected intersections of nature and human environments. This essay delves into those topicshe narrative of these two raccoons as they navigate a human establishment, shedding light on both the humor and the underlying commentary of this unusual situation. I could not find the theme of "adaptation" below. I think ChatGPT believes a manager shooing raccoons out is "adaptive" but learning to live with raccoons in his restaurant would be more fitting of that subject. Note that this paragraph went from 84 words to 45. 

Setting the Scene

Imagine that nestled in the heart of a bustling city there exists a cozy restaurant nestled in a bustling city, a place where the aroma of gourmet dishes mingles with the soft hum of conversation and clinking cutlery. This is a common typographical error--a misplaced modifier. By placing "city" right before "a place where the aroma of..." it is the city and not the restaurant that is being described grammatically, which is confusing. The establishment prides itself on its welcoming atmosphere and diverse clientele. It is here, in this very restaurant, that our story begins. As a waiter stands holding the door open and saying goodbye to one of the regularsthe door swings open, two raccoons enter, their striped tails and masked faces standing out starkly against the backdrop of fine dining. This is the furthest ChatGPT can apparently reach with imagination. The rest of this piece treats the raccoons as if they are real and the scenario is real, but here we have the door swinging open and have to ask--does it swing open on its own or are the raccoons swinging it open or is perhaps a doorman opening the door for them? This is an important question to resolve and by not resolving it, ChatGPT is doing what it is well-known to do, writing fluff without substance. The sight of these nocturnal creatures in a human eatery is both surreal and intriguing, challenging the boundaries of normalcy and inviting both the patrons and the staff into a moment of peculiar wonder. There are several things wrong here. In one sentence, we have three words/phrases that mean "bizarre:" "surreal," "challenging the boundaries of normalcy," and "peculiar." Without a thesaurus, this would read: "The sight of these...creatures is both bizarre and intriguing, bizarre and inviting [those in the restaurant] into a moment of bizarre wonder." I also do not picture anyone having a moment of "peculiar wonder" if two raccoons walk in--"terror" would probably be more appropriate. Most people should realize that two raccoons can be dangerous. They bite and carry a lot of diseases. 

The Raccoons' Perspective

From the raccoons' perspective, this restaurant is a realm of sensory overload. The interior, with its polished wooden linen-tableclothed tables to hide under and ambient lighting, contrasts sharply with on first glance is similar to their natural habitat—forest floors and urban alleyways. So, the problem is that a dimly lit diner and a dimly lit alleyway are similar--not contrasting. Polished wooden tables would also be similar to a stand of small trees in a forest--but you would not have polished wooden tables in a fine dining establishment as a general rule--the tables would be clothed in fine linen (hence why they were traditionally known as "white tablecloth restaurants"). It has pointed out similarities between the fine dining establishment and alleyway while stating the environments contrast. Further, if two raccoons are walking into a place that serves "gourmet dishes" it is most likely this diner is in the city and not in some country dive--so the raccoons would have no knowledge of "forest floors." Since the first sentence set up a contrast, it is important to recognize the comparison and spring into the contrast from that: Their heightened senses of smell and hearing pick up on the rich tapestry of scents and sounds, making the restaurant a new and exciting landscape to explore. The contrasts between a climate-controlled, busy restaurant and an alleyway would also be in the number of people and tables filling the space. The raccoons, are driven inside by their inquisitive nature, hunger, and innate intelligence, exhibit a mixture of curiosity and caution. Again, we see redundancy-- "inquisitive nature" and "curiosity." If they were cautious, they would not have entered. Their heightened senses of smell and hearing pick up on the rich tapestry of scents and sounds, making the restaurant a new and exciting landscape to explore. It is necessary to move this sentence to create some contrast after saying we were doing that.

The raccoons approach the nearest unoccupied tables with an almost deliberate intent. After telling us they approach the tables, we get "almost deliberate." Either they are approaching mindlessly because they have rabies or they are doing it deliberately. There is no "almost" deliberate. It is also important that the reader know these tables do not have people at them. If two raccoons are approaching tables with people at them, there is something seriously wrong with them (read: rabies). TAfter climbing on one, their nimble paws, accustomed to foraging and manipulating objects like trash can lids, now encounter an array of human artifacts. They are particularly intrigued by the plates and utensils, which seem to offer a tantalizing array of new textures and shapes. Once again, ChatGPT is unfamiliar with texture of plates and silverware. Both are smooth, so by saying their is a contrast in textures, without describing what has a different texture and why, is confusing. Further, I would think a raccoon would be more interested in the foods than in empty plates. ChatGPT also makes a common new writer error by having the raccoons approach the tables but then not explain that they move to the table tops before talking about them playing with stuff on top of them. Some steps can be generalized or skipped, but in this case we go from approaching tables to playing with cutlery and that jump is a bit too far.--This interaction highlights the raccoons' adaptability and problem-solving skills, as they attempt to understand and engage with their unfamiliar surroundings. What adaptability? What problem solving? They are playing with things in their environment just as they always do. That does not show adaptation nor is there any problem solving involved. 

As you can see, it is quite a slog to fix. In most cases, slogging through reduces the word count by half. However, I wonder how many teachers are accepting this drivel as good work? I already see many websites with garbage articles like this that say nothing, really. 

I know, you are thinking, "Oh, yeah? Do you think you can do any better?" So, after getting the awful results above, I put an original short story on Amazon. Feel free to critique it at will.