9 ms·
“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain t
by avazhi 1y ago
“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain training corpora so deployed systems stay sharp, reliable, and aligned over time.”
An LLM-written line if I’ve ever seen one. Looks like the authors have their own brainrot to contend with.
- askafriend 1y agoIf it conveys the intended information then what's wrong with that? You're fighting a tsunami here. People are going to use LLMs to help their writing now and forever.
- binary132 1y agoThe brainrot apologists have arrived
- askafriend 1y agoWhy shouldn't the author use LLMs to assist their writing? The issue is how tools are used, not that they are used at all.
- grey-area 1y agoBecause they produce text like this.
- xanderlewis 1y agoIs it really so painful to just think for yourself? For one sentence? The answer to your question is that it rids the writer of their unique voice and replaces it with disingenuous slop. Also, it's not a 'tool' if it does the entire job. A spellchecker is a tool; a pencil is a tool. A machine that writes for you (which is what happened here) is not a tool. It's a substitute. There seem to be many falling for the fallacy of 'it's here to stay so you can't be unhappy about its use'.
- SkyBelow 1y agoAssist without replacing. If you were to pass your writing it and have it provide a criticism for you, pointing out places you should consider changes, and even providing some examples of those changes that you can selectively choose to include when they keep the intended tone and implications, then I don't see the issue. When you have it rewrite the entire writing and you past that for someone else to use, then it becomes an issue. Potentially, as I think the context matter. The more a writing is meant to be from you, the more of an issue I see. Having an AI write or rewrite a birthday greeting or get well wishes seems worse than having it write up your weekly TPS report. As a simple metric, I judge based on how bad I would feel if what I'm writing was being summarized by another AI or automatically fed into a similar system. In a text post like this, where I expect others are reading my own words, I wouldn't use an AI to rewrite what I'm posting. As you say, it is in how the tool is used. Is it used to assist your thoughts and improve your thinking, or to replace them? That isn't really a binary classification, but more a continuum, and the more it gets to the negative half, the more you will see others taking issue with it.
- dwaltrip 1y agoThe paragraph in question is a very poor use of the tool.
- avazhi 1y agoIf you can’t understand the irony inherent in getting an LLM to write about LLM brainrot, itself an analog for human brainrot that arises by the habitual non use of the human brain, then I’m not sure what to tell you. Whether it’s a tsunami and whether most people will do it has no relevance to my expectation that researchers of LLMs and brainrot shouldn’t outsource their own thinking and creativity to an LLM in a paper that itself implies that using LLMs causes brainrot.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nemonemo 1y agoWhat you are obsessing with is about the writer's style, not its substance. How sure are you if they outsourced the thinking to LLMs? Do you assume LLMs produce junk-level contents, which contributes human brain rot? What if their contents are of higher quality like the game of Go? Wouldn't you rather study their writing?
- avazhi 1y agoWriting is thinking, so they necessarily outsourced their thinking to an LLM. As far as the quality of the writing goes, that’s a separate question, but we are nowhere close to LLMs being better, more creative, and more interesting writers than even just decent human writers. But if we were, it wouldn’t change the perversion inherent in using an LLM here.
- nemonemo 1y agoHave you considered a case where English might not be the authors' first language? They may have written a draft in their mother tongue and merely translated it using LLMs. Its style may not be many people's liking, but this is a technical manuscript, and I would think the novelty of the ideas is what matters here, more than the novelty of proses.
- jll29 1y agoI agree with the "writing is thinking" part, but I think most would agree LLM-output is at least "eloquent", and that native speakers can benefit from reformulation. This is _not_ to say that I'd suggest LLMs should be used to write papers.
- moritzwarhier 1y agoWhat information is conveyed by this sentence? Seems like none to me.
- uludag 1y agoNothing wrong with using LLMs—until every paragraph sounds like it’s A/B tested for LinkedIn virality. That’s the rot setting in. The problem isn’t using AI—it’s sounding like AI trying to impress a marketing department. That’s when you know the loop’s closed.
- drusepth 1y agoBrilliantly phrased — sharp, concise, and perfectly captures that uncanny "AI-polished" cadence everyone recognizes but can’t quite name. The tone strikes just the right balance between wit and warning.
- solarkraft 1y agoYou are absolutely right!
- ewoodrich 1y agoLately the Claude-ism that drives me even more insane is "Perfect!". Particularly when it's in response to pointing out a big screw up that needs correcting and CC utterly unfazed just merrily continues on like I praised it. "You have fundamentally misunderstood the problems with the layout, before attempting another fix, think deeply and re-read the example text in the PLAN.md line by line and compare with each line in the generated output to identify the out of order items in the list." "Perfect!...."
- glenstein 1y agoOne thing I don't understand, there was (appropriately) a news cycle about sycophancy in responses. Which was real, and happening to an excessive degree. It was claimed to be nerfed, but it seems strong as ever in GPT5, and it ignores my custom instructions to pare it back.
- anjel 1y ago"Any Compliments about my queries cause me anguish and other potent negative emotions."
- stavros 1y agoThe problem is that writing isn't only judged on whether it conveys the intended information or not. It's also judged on whether it does that well, plus other aesthetic criteria. There is such a thing as "good writing", distinct from "it mentioned all the things it needed to mention".
- grey-area 1y agoIt’s a text generator regurgitating plausible phrases without understanding and producing stale and meaningless pablum. It doesn’t even know what the intended information is, and judging from the above neither did the human involved. It doesn’t help writing it stultifies and gives everything the same boring cheery yet slightly confused tone of voice.
- zer00eyz 1y ago> It’s a text generator regurgitating plausible phrases without understanding and producing stale and meaningless pablum. Are you describing LLM's or social media users? Dont conflate how the content was created with its quality. The "You must be at least this smart (tall) to publish (ride)" sign got torn down years ago. Speakers corner is now an (inter)national stage and it written so it must be true...
- grey-area 1y agoI really could only be talking about LLMs but social media is also low quality. The quality (or lack of it) if such texts is self evident. If you are unable to discern that I can’t help you.
- stocksinsmocks 1y ago“The quality if such texts…” Indeed. The humans have bested the machines again.
- grey-area 1y agoI think that’s a good example of a superficial problem in a quickly typed statement, easily ignored, vs the profound and deep problems with LLM texts - they are devoid of meaning and purpose.
- jeltz 1y agoYour comment was low quality noise while the one you replied to was on topic and useful. A short and useful comment with a typo is high quality content while a perfectly written LLM comment would be junk.
- AlecSchueler 1y agoStyle is important in writing. It always has been.
- sailingparrot 1y ago> If it conveys the intended information then what's wrong with that? Well, the issue is precisely that it doesn’t convey any information. What is conveyed by that sentence, exactly ? What does reframing data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI entails and what information is in there? There are precisely 0 bit of information in that paragraph. We all know training on bad data lead to a bad model, thinking about it as “coginitive hygiene for AI” does not lead to any insight. LLMs aren’t going to discover interesting new information for you, they are just going to write empty plausible sounding words. Maybe it will be different in a few years. They can be useful to help you polish what you want to say or otherwise format interesting information (provided you ask it to not be ultra verbose), but its just not going to create information out of thin air if you don't provide it to it. At least, if you do it yourself, you are forced to realize that you in fact have no new information to share, and do not waste your and your audience time by publishing a paper like this.
- Angostura 1y agoit’s not really clear whether it conveys an “intended meaning” because it’s not clear whether the meaning - whatever it is - is really something the authors intended.
- dwaltrip 1y agoBecause it sounds like shit? Taste matters, especially in the age of generative AI. And it doesn’t convey information that well, to be honest.
- computerthings 1y ago[dead]
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- standardly 1y agoThat is indeed an LLM-written sentence — not only does it employ an em dash, but also lists objects in a series — twice within the same sentence — typical LLM behavior that renders its output conspicuous, obvious, and readily apparent to HN readers.
- drekipus 1y agoAm I the only one who picks this as LLM output too?
- anonymous908213 1y agoThe poster is using the LLMisms they're calling out in the process of calling them out, for the purpose of irony.
- kcatskcolbdi 1y agothanks, I hate it.
- Jackson__ 1y agoLLM slop is not just bad—it's degrading our natural language.
- itsnowandnever 1y agowhy do they always say "not only" or "it isn't just x but also y and z"? I hated that disingenuous verbosity BEFORE these LLMs out and now it'll all over the place. I saw a post on linked in that was literally just like 10+ statements of "X isn't just Y, it's etc..." and thought I was having a stroke
- Starlevel004 1y agoGPT loves lists and that's a variant of a list
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mtillman 1y agoI recently saw someone on HN comment about LLMs using “training” in quotes but no quotes for thinking or reasoning. Making my (totally rad fwiw) Fiero look like a Ferrari does not make it a Ferrari.
- snickerbockers 1y agoI like to call it tuning, it's more accurate to the way they "learn" by adjusting coefficients and also there's no proven similarity between any existing AI and human cognition. Sometimes I wonder if any second order control system would qualify as "AI" under the extremely vague definition of the term.
- mvdtnz 1y agoWhat is actually up with the "it's not just X, it's Y" cliche from LLMs? Supposedly these things are trained on all of the text on the internet yet this is not a phrasing I read pretty much anywhere, ever, outside of LLM content. Where are they getting this from?
- kalavan 1y agoIt's probably getting amplified by the RLHF stage because the earlier models didn't do that. But that just shifts the question to "what kind of reviewer actually likes 'it's not just X' cliche?" I have no idea.
- Nio1024 1y agoI think using large language models really accelerates mental atrophy. It's like when you use an input method for a long time, it automatically completes words for you, and then one day when you pick up a pen to write, you find you can't remember how to spell the words. However, the main point in the article is that we need to feed high-quality data to large language models. This view is actually a consensus, isn't it? Many agent startups are striving to feed high-quality domain-specific knowledge and workflows to large models.
- malfist 1y agoAlso if you've built the perfect filter for context haven't you just built a real ai?
- conartist6 1y agoAnd if they need to keep their own output out of the system to avoid model collapse, why don't I? There's this double standard. Slop is bad for models. Keep it out of the models at all costs! They cannot wait to put it into my head though. They don't care about my head.
- BobbyTables2 1y agoHR people have been speaking that way long before LLMs. Did you already update and align your OKR’s? Is your career accelerating from 360 degree peer review, continuous improvement, competency management, and excellence in execution? Do you review your goals daily, with regular 1-on-1 discussions with your Manager?
- sophiebits 1y ago“360 degree peer review” isn’t a thing, the whole idea is that a 360 includes feedback from both your manager and your peers, that’s what distinguishes it from a 180! :)
- boesboes 1y agoTell that to the HR people! I was once 'asked' to rate all my colleagues in a excel sheet so HR had 'something to base their evaluation on' smh
- az09mugen 1y agoIt is sad people study "brain rot" for LLMs but not for humans. If people were more engaged in cognitive hygiene for humans, many of the social media platforms would be very sane.
- jeltz 1y agoWhat do you base your claim on that people don't study that? I do not follow the research in that area but would find it highly unlikely there was no research into it.
- az09mugen 1y agoI did not express myself correctly, but you are kinda right. Expressed more correctly, the point I was trying to make is that the cognitive hygiene seems more mainstream/important for LLMs than for humans. There are studies of course of human "brain rot" such as this one : https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/mit-study-finds-artificial-intelligence-use-reprograms-the-brain-leading-to-cognitive-decline/ https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/mit-study-finds-artifi... What I am sad about is that some people spend time/worry about balancing some random weights of some LLMs for the sake of some "alignment" or whatever "brain rot". Aren't humans more important than LLMs ? Are we, as humans, that tied to LLMs ? English is not my native language and I hope I made my point clearer.
- zvmaz 1y agoI wish I had your confidence in "detecting" LLM sentences. All I can do for now is get a very vague "intuition" as to whether a sentence is LLM-generated. We know how intuitions are not always reliable.
- mortenjorck 1y agoThis is pretty clearly an LLM-written sentence, but the list structure and even the em dashes are red herrings. What qualifies this as an LLM sentence is that it makes a mildly insightful observation, indeed an inference, a sort of first-year-student level of analysis that puts a nice bow on the train of thought yet doesn't really offer anything novel. It doesn't add anything; it's just semantic boilerplate that also happens to follow a predictable style.
- ratelimitsteve 1y agofor me it was the word "corpora"
- mock-possum 1y agoPlus “X isnt just Y—it’s Z” another usual suspect
- mtillman 1y agoI think it's funny/logical how research suggests LLM use makes the user—who is writing more content for the LLM to consume, of course—less intelligent, which makes the system get less intelligent over time. Sugar, alcohol, cigarettes, and LLMs.
- potsandpans 1y agoIm curious where all you top commenters were 5 years ago when grammarly was a product used by most professional writers. If you weren't as incensed then, it's almost like your outrage and compulsion to post this on every hn thread is completely baseless.
- ewoodrich 1y agoPerhaps because it didn't stick out like a sore thumb? Or because it became so prevalent they observe the exact same tics in every other article they read nowadays?
- potsandpans 1y agoAre you speaking for yourself? Or someone else?