Talk:Taylor Swift's "psy-op"

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Taylor Swift's "psy-op". This is also a forum for spreading libelous rumors about Taylor Swift's "psy-op". This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

AI......

So... is this AI?? MrX blow me 15:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It abso-fucking-lutely is. Terminate this article.Terminate the Colonel's command. (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not doubting that it is or may be, but I don't know much about detecting AI. How does one know if something was written by AI? MrX blow me 21:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@MrX: it was willy on wheels the first who said it was AI, alhtough I'm pretty sure he also said the AI detector isn't 100% trustable... 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 21:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the unsubstantiated accusation at the top of the article until the accusation can at the very least be substantiated with something. MrX blow me 16:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I do acknowledge that at least some of the circumstantial evidence looks a little sus, but this is far from the first time an article has been mostly created with one edit. I'm not sure why/how some people do it this way, don't know if they're working on it in a word doc, the spoon, or something else entirely. But I would at least like to know which AI detector said this was AI-generated before we plaster a warning/accusation at the top of the article. MrX blow me 17:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

AI Accusations PART TWO!

I stumbled onto this article after seeing the Top 10 Articles of 2024 voting list, and seeing a little footnote stating that this may be AI. The conversation happened, like, over a year ago, but I really do want to add my two cents. I'm pretty good at detecting AI, I've used several AI detection guides, and I've used several websites like ZeroGPT to determine if this is AI. And I do have to say, the results are PRETTY SHOCKING!

So, to determine if an article is AI, there's basically certain red flags that AI articles usually use. For example:

1. Are some headers bold? Barely any human-written article does this, but AI does it constantly.
2. Is the em dash (—) overused to a fucking shred? If so, either you write like me, or this article has a high chance of being written by AI. Or Shakespeare.
3. Are random fucking words bolded and italicized? Either you got something taken from a clickbait video script, a poorly-made newsletter, or an AI article.
4. Many AI articles over-use the words here.
5. Was the article made in one edit? Then that's very sus. Either that, or they just got a pack from the street.
6. Is there some form of very fucking weird formatting that no human would do? Either you got an orangutan or an AI.

A singular red flag alone aren't enough to determine that this is AI, but all of them combined is, as I would say it years ago, very sus. Oh I swear it was green, he was in the vents just a minute ago. In fact, out of all of these red flags, 4/6 of them are in this article. Here's all of them:

1. Are some headers bold? Barely any human-written article does this, but AI does it constantly.  Yes
2. Is the em dash (—) overused to a fucking shred? If so, either you write like me, or this article has a high chance of being written by AI. Or Shakespeare.  Yes
3. Are random fucking words bolded and italicized? Either you got something taken from a clickbait video script, a poorly-made newsletter, or an AI article.  Yes
4. Many AI articles over-use the words here.
5. Was the article made in one edit? Then that's very sus. Either that, or they just got a pack from the street.  Yes
6. Is there some form of very fucking weird formatting that no human would do? Either you got an orangutan or an AI.

Detectors

I ran a part of this article into an AI detector, and I got these results. Remember, AI detectors are NOT very accurate!

Mixed means it might be written by AI.

Detector	Result	Trustability
ZeroGPT	High Chance of AI (66% AI)	50%
GPTZero	Very High Chance of AI (68% AI, 32% Mixed)	72%
Copyleaks	AI-written (100% AI)	72%
Notegpt	Very High Chance of AI (70% AI)	50%
ZeroGPT.net	Very High Chance of AI (70% AI)	Unknown
Scribblr	Human with heavy AI assistance (40% AI)	55%

(Trustability was measured by how accurate it can determine if an article is AI. It's a short experiment (each AI only have 9 samples), but it can do. For more information, see this site.)

Who created it?

The thing that pushed me to write all of this is that the creator of this article, Tranvit, has actually wrote loads of AI articles before. Check UnBooks:Main Page and choose a random book on the "Recent UnBooks" part of that page, and most likely, it'd been written by Tranvit, and had been flagged as AI by either me or Willy. Having the creator of this page already have written several AI articles before is concerning.

Summary

Well, if there's anything to take from this, it's that this article is probably AI-generated. There's a slim chance that it wasn't, but there's at least a 95% chance this was AI-generated. I'll wait for an admin to take input.

🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 19:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gergdown: that Tranvit guy has been quite suspicious since the user entered here, I can't deny. I don't mind if they made the articles AI-generated because when they entered there wasn't any rule explicitly banning AI, but I wish they weren't lurking that much and actually answered when talked on their talkpage. they did answer once and said their articles hadn't been AI-generated, but AI-translated, yet I can't deny it's still quite suspicious nonetheless. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 22:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)