Talk:Pet humanization

This Article reads like ChatGPT wrote it.
Please rewrite the article to sound significantly less artificial, thanks. Devann (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Edited Anthrozoology section
Agree with Devann on the article's artificial tone. I edited the Anthrozoology section down, as it contributed almost no new information and was obviously generated via AI. I'm not sure the section is needed at all, but feel free to give input. Fluxjupyter (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The beginning of the article with the "⁤It is important to note" fired off all alarm bells in my head. Putting the article through GPTZero shows 100% probability of AI generated content, but I'm not sure how reliable that tool is for content on wikipedia due to possible overfitting. Octopirate (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Biased to an anthropocentric reading
How much of this is due to generative AI or the intent of the original author I can't determine (the title comes from an consumer discretionary report by the Binghamton Investment Fund rather than an academic source) but the article is structured to reinforce the central claim of these pet owners anthropomorphizing their pets with virtually non-existent connection to the larger study of animal rights and ethics. It expects us to take that core tenet at face value without any criticism, downplays any valid judgement of animal cognition pet owners make without justification, and the further reading section treats the subject like a mental illness. It's my opinion that adding a "criticism" section, merging it with anthropomorphism or deleting it outright should be considered. 94.2.119.223 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Was any part of this article written by generative AI? Jarble (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)