@Juantutri — I don’t know many people who can analyze text a

Each version has its own merits so I can’t say that one, as a whole, is better than the other. Here’s my take on their differences – the numbers represent the source version:

“naramdaman ko agad (1)” vs. “agad kong naramdaman (2)” – same meaning, but for a literary work, I find (2) as a more effective way of saying it.“merong/mayroong” vs. “may” – both are correct, but the flow of words would sound smoother with “may”.“kasuklam-suklam (1)” vs. “nakakasuklam (abhorring/disgusting) (2)” – the repetition of the root word “suklám (disgust)” intensifies its meaning, so (1) can be more effective literarily.“pero (1) vs. “ngunit (2)” – either one, but “pero” is a lot more often used colloquially.“… ngunit/pero hindi ko maipaliwanag (but I can’t explain)” – this phrase is common to both versions. I think it is more grammatically correct if an “ito” or “siya” is added in there - “ngunit/pero hindi ko ITO/SIYA maipaliwanag (but I can’t explain IT)”. Giving an object (it) to the verb adds clarity to that phrase.“tangka niyang pagpatay (1)” vs. “kanyang pagtatangkang patayin (2)” – they don’t really mean the same thing. “Tangka” is “intention” while “pagtatangka” is “attempt” or the carrying out of the intention. “Pagpatay” is the “manner of killing” while “patayin” is “to kill”. The correct phrase would depend on what happened. Was it just an intention, or was an attempt already made?“pagpapawala kay Marcus” – this is common to both, but I am not clear about what it means. The word “págpawalâ” is often used to mean “to relieve” as in “pagpawala ng sakit (to relieve the pain)”. I would think that the phrase means “bringing about Marcus’s getting lost” but context is needed. Is Marcus a child or a dog that got lost?“naglalabas siya ng aura ng mapanuksong kasamaan (1)” vs. “lumalabas sa kanya ang aura ng masama (2)” – I think an aura radiates out of a person and that happens beyond his control. So “lumalabas (coming out)” is the more correct verb to use than “naglalabas (bringing out)”. “Kasamaán” is the noun “malevolence/wickedness” while “masamâ” is the adjective “bad”. It has to be “kasamaan (1)” for “aura of wickedness”. “Mapanukso(ng/ na)” is “alluring”. Adding it is optional.“kita (1)” vs. “makikita (2)” – “kita” is just an informal way of saying “makikita”.“… “brusko” niyang pagtayo at paglalakad (1)” vs. “ kanyang matigas na pagtayo at paglakad (2)” – “brusko” (from Spanish “brusco”) is “brusque”, which is more descriptive than just “pagtayo (way of standing/stance)”. “Paglakad” is “the way one walks” while “paglalakad” is “the way one is walking”. It is “paglakad” and not “paglalakad” that agrees in form with “pagtayo”. So, I’d pick “brusko” from (1) and “paglakad” from (2) – “brusko” niyang pagtayo at paglakad.“tamad niyang pag-upo (1)” vs. “kanyang tamad na pag-upo (2)” – it’s just a matter of word arrangement. I’d choose (1) only for the reason of its being consistent with the preceding “brusko” phrase.“buong paraang dinadala niya ang kanyang sarili (1)” vs. “kanyang paraan ng pagdadala sa kanyang sarili” – I’d choose (2) as it sounds more natural to me. Phrase (2) also translates better as “the way he carries himself”.

“na higit kong kinaiinisang dahil (2) – there should be no “g” or the linker “na” after “kinaiinisan”. So Phrase (1) says it correctly.“maligaya niyang ngiti” vs. “kanyang masayang ngiti” – either way, the word arrangements are correct. Between “maligaya (joyjul)” and “happy (masaya)” before “ngiti (smile)”, I’d choose “masaya”. However, I think using “maganda(ng) (nice)” instead could better describe a deceptive smile.

“pagsasalita (1)” vs. “pananalita (2)” – “pagsasalitâ” is “the way/manner a person talks” while “pananalitâ” more often refers to the use of words or the speech itself. “Malumanay” is “calm and gentle”, which goes better with the “manner” of “pagsasalitâ”. Well, based on my knowledge of Tagalog, that’s how I would evaluate the 2 versions.

@Juantutri Ah, thank you...interesting.OK, so I can fess up...
I read the original version (version #1) and was unsure about a couple of phrase choices by the writer (as a foreign language learner, I had trouble figuring out why they picked the version of saying what they did).So I ran it through the my artificial intelligence program asking it to "correct any errors or make it sound better," and the AI came back with version #2. Sometimes the AI said it like I would have, and other times it just added to the confusion. ; ) It looks like, out of the various differences, you (Juantutri) overall picked version #1 and #2 almost equally, with a slight edge given to #1 (the human version).It's interesting to see how well the AI was able to do here...I still don't trust it to use it as a solid learning guide, it's still too often incorrect. But it looks like it's not terrible...maybe some day it will become reliable enough for a learner to use as a guide?I wonder if you had any overall sense of "unnaturalness" in version #2?

@jkos
Hah! It did not occur to me that either of them was an AI output. So, I am impressed at how AI rehashed the original text. It could have passed for a human output. Except for that “g” in “kinakaiinisan”, all of AI’s sentences are grammatically correct.

What I noticed though was that Version 2 is a toned-down and a less informal retelling of Version 1. For a literary work of the thriller genre, the result comes across as less engaging.

Had I not seen the text and only heard the video clips of the 2 versions; hence grammar-checking would not get in the way, I could have easily decided that Version 1 was better because it painted a better picture of the situation. The two words that AI replaced – kasuklam-suklam and brusko – contributed significantly to making its version less vivid. But its “kanyang paraan ng pagdadala sa kanyang sarili” struck me as more like what a native Tagalog speaker would have written.I would have expected an AI version to come up with a few unnatural phrases, but there were none. The use of “pagpapawala” could have been one, but maybe AI couldn’t figure out what it meant contextually, too, so it just reused it.