I hate that we’re allowing this writer to re-popularize pseudo incest. He’s a weirdo and this show, speed…
wtf? incest? are you dumb? they're not related. they specifically says so in the first episode and repeat that in other instances as well. you're a weirdo for your prejudice and failing to understand logic
oh i just read your other comments. you're intentionally trying to mislead people. ok cool. PsEuDo InCeST!!11🤡 main couple know they're not related.
why is the rating so low suddenly? also i don't get why people consider this in anyway as incest (genuine question…
some people are very slow. can't understand logic. or maybe non native/don't understand mandarin and can't read subtitles fast enough. those are the ones complaining
the prompt must have been something like this Hey ChatGPT, write me a negative review for the Chinese drama Dazzling. Make it sound realistic and detailed, like someone who genuinely tried to enjoy it but found it slow and boring. Compare it to Speed and Love Drama from the same novel author and say that one is much better in pacing, chemistry, emotional scenes, and storytelling. Keep the tone calm and reasonable instead of overly hateful.
How tf you're calling this slow when it just speedrun a massive amount of story in five episodes that usually takes other dramas a full 30 to unravel? fake review.
“Hey ChatGPT, write me a negative review for the Chinese drama Dazzling. Make it sound realistic and detailed, like someone who genuinely tried to enjoy it but found it slow and boring. Compare it to Speed and Love Drama from the same novel author and say that one is much better in pacing, chemistry, emotional scenes, and storytelling. Keep the tone calm and reasonable instead of overly hateful.”
Why this probably fits:
The review is too balanced for a genuine angry rant. It repeatedly says things like “personally think,” “had potential,” “I honestly tried,” which are common AI softeners. The structure is extremely “LLM-review-shaped”: Opening criticism Comparison point Detailed comparison paragraph Conclusion summary It keeps recycling the same critique in paraphrased form: slow pacing weak chemistry repetitive emotions less engaging than the comparison drama “Speed and Love Drama” is repeated unnaturally often, almost like the prompt explicitly instructed the model to mention it multiple times for comparison/SEO/agenda purposes. The wording is generic enough that it could apply to almost any melodrama: “slow execution” “uninteresting plot” “emotional impact” “story progression” “chemistry between the leads”
you're a weirdo for your prejudice and failing to understand logic
oh i just read your other comments. you're intentionally trying to mislead people. ok cool. PsEuDo InCeST!!11🤡 main couple know they're not related.
Hey ChatGPT, write me a negative review for the Chinese drama Dazzling. Make it sound realistic and detailed, like someone who genuinely tried to enjoy it but found it slow and boring. Compare it to Speed and Love Drama from the same novel author and say that one is much better in pacing, chemistry, emotional scenes, and storytelling. Keep the tone calm and reasonable instead of overly hateful.
“Hey ChatGPT, write me a negative review for the Chinese drama Dazzling. Make it sound realistic and detailed, like someone who genuinely tried to enjoy it but found it slow and boring. Compare it to Speed and Love Drama from the same novel author and say that one is much better in pacing, chemistry, emotional scenes, and storytelling. Keep the tone calm and reasonable instead of overly hateful.”
Why this probably fits:
The review is too balanced for a genuine angry rant.
It repeatedly says things like “personally think,” “had potential,” “I honestly tried,” which are common AI softeners.
The structure is extremely “LLM-review-shaped”:
Opening criticism
Comparison point
Detailed comparison paragraph
Conclusion summary
It keeps recycling the same critique in paraphrased form:
slow pacing
weak chemistry
repetitive emotions
less engaging than the comparison drama
“Speed and Love Drama” is repeated unnaturally often, almost like the prompt explicitly instructed the model to mention it multiple times for comparison/SEO/agenda purposes.
The wording is generic enough that it could apply to almost any melodrama:
“slow execution”
“uninteresting plot”
“emotional impact”
“story progression”
“chemistry between the leads”