3 ms·
Exactly, it sort of increases the effort and decreases likelihood of reading, so support for authors there is a good thing. At the same time, the LLM tools wil
by RandomLensman 3y ago
Exactly, it sort of increases the effort and decreases likelihood of reading, so support for authors there is a good thing.
At the same time, the LLM tools will do more than just enhance the language in a narrow way but rather also "streamline" it, which reduces what can be expressed. That probably will lead to a drop in the maximum complexity that can be expressed. We already see that in other areas where language is already down to really simple stuff with all complexity being removed (whether it is there or not.
- falcor84 3y ago>That probably will lead to a drop in the maximum complexity that can be expressed. I'm not following your argument here. Are you saying that rather than getting help from an LLM, future researchers will be forced to use the LLM's output as-is?
- RandomLensman 3y agoNo. However, there will be expectations forming around the language in papers based on how LLMs use language: People using LLMs to enhance readability will have an impact as the language would gravitate towards something like "maximum likelihood" text (incl text length). It will be very easy to read but also limits what can be expressed within such a "corset".
- falcor84 3y agoIf editors make such a decision, how would that be any different than a publication deciding to set a readability bar based on something like Flesch–Kincaid?