Scott M. Fulton, III @SMFulton3@qoto.org

Okay, then. We get serious.

Since the #techlayoffs from @neo4j, I've been asked by a few people, have I really been somebody, or am I just a writer?

It's a creative question, really, when you think about it. How should I respond? I've written and published countless thousands of articles, and 17 books under my own byline, since I officially launched my career 39 years ago. Many folks perceive #writing to be "merely labor," or just an art, while #contentstrategy or #marketingstrategy or #seostrategy ... those are "job jobs." When it comes to my future, on which side of the fence do I stand?

Here is my response: I was there when the fence was built. Chances are, I built it. I built it strategically. I built it to win. I built the strategies and the itineraries and the editorial teams and the content publishing engines to improve the lives and work of the people I've written for, and the people I'm writing to. I created narratives around and about the hard work and well-crafted products of good people - many of whom truly didn't deserve another layoff in their lives.

Today, I've relaunched Scott Fulton On Point. It's an active testament to the power of what I've produced and what I've accomplished. You said you wanted to see some proof, some authentic record, of how content and content strategies make an impact? Here you go.

https://scottfultononpoint.com

Time to own the narrative once again.

From my friend David Gewirtz at @zdnet:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/can-ai-detectors-save-us-from-chatgpt-i-tried-3-online-tools-to-find-out/

What clinches the ChatGPT-ness of an essay or a passage of text, for me, is the absolute lack of any literary motivation. Whatever writes a #ChatGPT paragraph appears to me to be fitting phrases into a framework. Its selection of phrases may have come from any number of other published items on the same material. But its only criteria for choosing from that pool appears to be semantic. It has a phraseology it's trying to fulfill, and it will pull from the grab bag until it finds the segment that fills it.

I can imagine an algorithmic procedure for fitting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together, that may work the same way. Brute-force selection at rapid speed may accomplish a solved puzzle at some point. Thing is, even though the puzzle is solved, it won't reveal any trace of the fact that the algorithm wasn't really trying to solve the puzzle. No, it may not have even referenced the cover photograph on the box.

By comparison, ChatGPT's solved puzzle, of you will, leaves a trace. There's a complete absence of a literary motivation - the feeling we get as readers that the writer is invested in you absorbing and believing what it's saying. What's transparent here is the pedantic, one-foot-before-the-other methodology that characterizes every sentence it manufactures.

That, in the end, is the key to detecting ChatGPT's signature in its product. There's nobody home. If a professor or teacher inspires students to write, either their confidence in their ability to fulfill expectations, or their dis-ease in doing so, will be apparent from the work itself. Both motivations produce a lack of homogeneity - a certain welcome discontinuity in the paragraph structure.

I submit we can rely on that, as our signal of originality and authenticity.

Watching the moment that "Leverage" suddenly, and most welcomely, became the @JeriLRyan Show.

When I say It's time for a Jeri Ryan-centered regular series, I'm speaking from having watched hundreds of scenes like this one (sometimes with the aid of rewind) and witnessed each whole scene magnetically align itself with her presence. Everything and everyone else is in her orbit until the credits roll. I see a scene like this, and I'm astounded that no one has written a _lead character_around this person.