4 ms·

LLM adopting conventions (typographical or otherwise) is what they do, right? The idea that anyone should then have to change their behaviour is ridiculous, as

• d4mi3n 7mo ago
  That's the rub though, isn't it? This feels like a form of self-censorship in response to some kind of shibboleth born of pattern recognition.
  • asplake 7mo ago
    Exactly
• wongarsu 7mo ago
  The issue is that LLMs adopt a very particular style that is a mix of being very polished (em-dash, lists-of-three, etc) that is reminiscent of marketing copy, and some quirks picked up from the humans curating the training data somewhere in Africa If AI was writing like everyone else we wouldn't be talking about this. But instead it writes like a subset of people write, many of them just some of the time as a conscious effort. An effort that now makes what they write look like lower quality
  • d4mi3n 7mo ago
    I think this is interesting in that I feel, grammatically and structurally, LLMs often generate _higher quality_ text than most humans do. What tends to be lower quality is the meaning of said texts. Say what you want about marketing-isms of your typical LLM, they have been trained and often succeed at making legible, easy to scan blobs of text. I suspect if more LLM spam was curated/touched up, most people would be unable to distinguish it from human discourse. There are already folks commenting on this article discussing other patterns they use to detect or flag bots using LLMs.
    • Sharlin 7mo ago
      I mean, yes, LLMs write grammatically perfect, well-structured English (and many other languages prevalent in their training sets). That's exactly why many people are now suspicious of anyone who writes neat, professional-style English on the internet.