'In Conclusion'.

Many have observed that ChatGPT has a tendency to include "in conclusion" at the end of whatever it's writing. In fact, before we edited "An Imaginary Tour of Southeast Alaska," that phrase was present, but even with the desire to run the response as close as possible to what ChatGPT wrote, we just couldn't publish it.

It's not a phrase you'll see much in journalism or other contemporary professional writing. The general preference is to craft a conclusion (when a piece requires one) in such a way that the words "in conclusion" aren't necessary. The phrase "in conclusion" should be relegated as a tool to help developing writers.

That's our take on the AI generated short-form articles: they read like an amateur following a template, have no depth, and don't meet our standards for publication. For example, in "An Imaginary Tour of Southeast Alaska" we did not cut ChatGPT's assertion that visitors can witness a reenactment of the 1804 battle of Sitka, although according to Editor Scott Rhode's research, while a reenactment took place in 2017, he didn't find any evidence it's an ongoing activity. In the same article, ChatGPT failed to mention how one would actually travel from Juneau to Sitka, which--as any Southeast resident knows--isn't something to take for granted.

In the aviation short-form article, note how Rindi White includes dates pertaining to the safety innovation she selected; they communicate to the reader why it matters to cover this topic now. The Al did not. In all fairness, the prompt didn't include a request for dates, but that's also the point--ChatGPT did what it was asked while our...