We'll have to look at this particular article in terms of error:
Type I: the writer is a real person with a real story. She admits she has a type, and OnlyFans would have satisfied that for cheaper than $70. But, others using $2400 ChatGPT Pro have found that even it lacks enough context for anything longer than a fantasy. The only reason to write about a $70 app is because OnlyFans does not allow AI interaction.
Type II: we incorrectly conclude this is a real person. Maybe this is less interesting, but I wonder what would happen if we asked AI Boyfriend to write his own 1,000-word advertisement. Very Turing test.
Type I: the writer is a real person with a real story. She admits she has a type, and OnlyFans would have satisfied that for cheaper than $70. But, others using $2400 ChatGPT Pro have found that even it lacks enough context for anything longer than a fantasy. The only reason to write about a $70 app is because OnlyFans does not allow AI interaction.
Type II: we incorrectly conclude this is a real person. Maybe this is less interesting, but I wonder what would happen if we asked AI Boyfriend to write his own 1,000-word advertisement. Very Turing test.