4 ms·
It’s incredibly annoying to read. So many super short sentences with the “not just X. Also Y” format. Little hooks like “The attack vector?” “Not fancy securit
by cddotdotslash 1y ago
It’s incredibly annoying to read. So many super short sentences with the “not just X. Also Y” format. Little hooks like “The attack vector?”
“Not fancy security tools. Not expensive antivirus software. Just asking my coding assistant…”
I actually feel like AI articles are becoming easier to spot. Maybe we’re all just collectively noticing the patterns.
- awesome_dude 1y agoFTR I sometimes use AI to make my writing more "professional" because I rite narsty like I've recently had to say "My CV has been cleaned up with AI, but there are no hallucinations/misrepresentations within it"
- anon84873628 1y agoHm, why do you have to say that? A CV is expected to be super polished and not necessarily consistent with the rest of your writing, right?
- fn-mote 1y agoIf I were asked a direct question, especially in a job interview, I would be truthful. That answer stops any sniping about using AI and lets me focus on my skills.
- nicce 1y agoAsking about AI usage in CV is pointless in my opinion. You are always responsible what reads in there. If they don’t like the writing style, then they don’t.
- makeitdouble 1y agoInterviewers directly asking whatever bothers them is fine IMHO. The alternative is keeping a negative impression when there could have been an insightful exchange, and the candidate also gets to know what to expect from the company.
- anon84873628 1y agoAh, I misunderstood the parent comment as having that disclaimer on the CV itself. I agree that if asked directly, it makes sense to talk about candidly. Hopefully an employer would be happy about someone who understands their weak spots and knows how to correctly use the tools as an aid.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoIf you have access to Microsoft Word, I'd customize the grammar checker settings to flag more than what is enabled by default. They have a lot of helpful rules that many are oblivious to because it's all buried deep in the preferences. Then adopt the stance of taking the green lines under advisement but ignore them if your original words suit your preference. That will get you polished up without submitting to AI editorial mundanity.
- poly2it 1y agoIt's also exactly the type of writing you see on LinkedIn (yuck), so this article really goes full circle!
- c0nsumer 1y agoI'm regularly asked by coworkers why I don't run my writing through AI tools to clean it up and instead spend a time iterating over it, re-reading, perhaps with a basic spell checker and maybe grammar check. That's because, from what I've seen to date, it'd take away my voice. And my voice -- the style in which I write -- is my value. It's the same as with art... Yes, AI tools can produce passable art, but it feels soulless and generic and bland. It lacks a voice.
- genghisjahn 1y agoI often ask for ai to give only grammar and spelling corrections, and then only a change set I apply manually. In other words the same functionality as every word processor since…y2k?
- wizzwizz4 1y agoWhy not just use one of those word processors, then? It seems like you'd expend less effort (unless there's an advantage of your approach that I'm missing), since the proof-reading systems built into a Word processor have a built-in queue UI with integrated accept / reject functionality that won't randomly tweak other parts of the paragraph behind your back.
- ACCount37 1y agoFar better at catching some types of mistakes. Word only has this many hardcoded rules past the basic grammar. LLMs operate on semantics, and pick up on errors like "the sentence is grammatically correct, but uses an obviously wrong term, given the context".
- wizzwizz4 1y agoThat's not the kind of thing I'd trust to a language model: I'd expect it to persuade me to change something correct to something incorrect more often than it catches a genuine error. But ymmv, I suppose.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kenjackson 1y agoHonestly, the issue is that most people are poor writers. Even “good” professional writing, like the NY Times science section, can be so convoluted. AI writing is predictable now, but generally better than most human writing. Yet can be an irritating at the same time.
- maest 1y agoIt reads like Linkedin slop, not AI slop.