3 ms·
It's very common in fantasy novels - dwarves and wizards do a lot of delving into caves, dungeons, and towers. It's also a solid academic term, so scientists de
by observationist 1y ago
It's very common in fantasy novels - dwarves and wizards do a lot of delving into caves, dungeons, and towers. It's also a solid academic term, so scientists delve into a lot of subjects, and brain people do a lot of delving into psyches.
LLMs are raising the bar by expanding the vocabulary people are exposed to, so words like delve will stick out. I think it's preferred by writers because it articulates a nice sounding alternative to words like explore, venture, analyze, think about, confront, etc. It's a useful, versatile word, and one of the metrics by which writers measure quality is the minimization of syllables.
LLMs are mostly indistinguishable from humans at this point; a one-shot output from any of the major models can be recognized in the same way you might recognize a writer. With multiple style passes, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between ChatGPT, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Hunter S. Thompson, Einstein, or any other sufficiently modeled figure. Throw in a few tens of thousands of words written by yourself and most of the models will do a nearly flawless job of copying your stylometric profile.
- bee_rider 1y agoDelving also has the implication of going deep, while exploring has the implication of going wide. I wonder if human authors really do a good job of picking the right word there. Either way I wonder if “misused delve” could be an interesting signal.
- observationist 1y agoIt's being looked at as an AI signal, which is causing labs to artificially suppress it, so it may end up being a "human-authored" signal in the end. Give it a year or two, though, and we're looking at AI with superhuman word choice. There will be dozens of layers of introspection underlying the selection of each word, in a broad context, articulating exactly whatever the user wants. The philosophical and psychological implications of superhuman text generation, beyond the p(doom) discussions, gets crazy. Superhuman persuasion is one facet, but unintended manipulation through reinforcement of secondary and peripheral notions in the context create all sorts of weirdness. Language communicates ideas, and we've made machines that produce intricate, sophisticated ideas that land in our brains. The consequences are going to be fascinating.