3 ms·

This effect is very rapidly vanishing. Well written English is starting to be seen as snobbish and AI-slop especially with younger generations growing up with A

This effect is very rapidly vanishing. Well written English is starting to be seen as snobbish and AI-slop especially with younger generations growing up with AI. The human touch of someone’s real voice myself, rather than a false veneer will carry more weight very soon.

shadowgovt 7mo ago
Trust me, it won't last because I've seen the cycle a couple of times. People pay lip-service to being accepting of variant grammar, but then the downvotes show up.
phs318u 7mo ago
> written English is starting to be seen as snobbish and AI-slop especially with younger generations growing up with AI This is tragic. I write English well and will employ grammar and word choice effectively to make an argument or get a point across. English was my best subject at school 45 years ago despite a career in tech. In fact, I’d suggest that my career as an architect and the need to convey concepts and argue trade-offs with stakeholders of varying backgrounds has honed that skill. Should I now dumb down my language or deliberately introduce errors in order to satisfy the barely literate or avoid being “detected” as an AI? (as if the latter were possible. It’s an arms race).
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Should I now dumb down my language or deliberately introduce errors Language is a tool. If it wins the argument, yes. I’ve absolutely gone back through drafts to tighten up language and reduce word complexity. And if I’m typing with someone who frequently typos, I’ll sometimes reverse the autocorrect. Mostly as a joke to myself. But I imagine it helps me come across as less stuck up. (Truth: I’m a bit stuck up about language :P.)
  - phs318u 7mo ago
    > Language is a tool While this is true, it is not just a tool. Or, I should say it’s a tool with far greater utility than just winning an argument or making a localised point. Language is how we think, and the ability to reason well is absolutely dependent on our skill with language. Language is the mark of humanity in the sense that how else can I convey to you a fragment of my inner state? My emotions, my feelings, my desires. The language of poetry and literature. That which sparks an emotional response in another. Dumbing down language is dumbing down period.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > Dumbing down language is dumbing down period I agree. But I don’t always see it as dumbing down. James Joyce’s Portrait starts out with a lot of nonsense, that doesn’t mean it’s dumb or dumbed down. It’s just communicating something that is best described that way. Even to an erudite audience. I have expertise in some topics. I don’t think of communicating that in lay terms to be dumbing down. The opposite, almost: finding good analogies and expressing them clearly is a lot of fun, even if what comes out the other end isn’t particularly sophisticated.
      - phs318u 7mo ago
        Totally agree. But I’m seeing (or more sensitive to) increasing cohorts that can’t string two words together to express a single thought coherently. There’s a difference between adapting language and use of linguistic tools (such as metaphors) versus semi-coherent blathering. EDIT: spread > express Which may be a segue to a point regarding using corrective tools as a form of preemptive editing?
eszed 7mo ago
I think you're right, and I don't know what to think about it. I enjoy writing, aim to write clearly - a skill or discipline that took a lot of time to learn, and ongoing effort to maintain. I've never sent or posted anything AI-written, beyond a pro-forma job description - because I don't know the domain-specific conventions, and HR returned my draft to me with the instruction to use ChatGPT, which I think amusing, but whatever: the output satisfied them, and I was able to get on with my day. I occasionally experiment with putting something I've written through an LLM, and it's inevitably a blandifying of my original, which doesn't really say what I intended. But maybe that's good? My wife thinks I'm sometimes too blunt, and colleagues don't always appreciate being told technical details. I also appreciate individuated writing - including the posts by people on this board are not native speakers. Grammatical mistakes seldom inhibit understanding when the writing has been done with care. I'm rambling at this point, but it's because I'm truly uncertain how these cultural changes will turn out, and (an old man's complaint, since time immemorial!) pretty sure I'll end up one of the last of the dinosaurs, clinging to my manually written "voice" long after everyone else in the world has come to see my preferences quaint.
antonvs 7mo ago
If knowing how to speak and write my native language well makes me a “snob”, so be it. But I don’t think I’m the problem in that case.
ThrowawayR2 7mo ago
The "L" in LLM stands for "language". If they are unable to express themselves in English (or whatever their native language is) fluently, they won't be able to prompt LLMs fluently and will be, in the debased patois of modern youth, "cooked". It's a self-correcting problem.

shadowgovt 7mo ago

Trust me, it won't last because I've seen the cycle a couple of times. People pay lip-service to being accepting of variant grammar, but then the downvotes show up.

phs318u 7mo ago

> written English is starting to be seen as snobbish and AI-slop especially with younger generations growing up with AI This is tragic. I write English well and will employ grammar and word choice effectively to make an argument or get a point across. English was my best subject at school 45 years ago despite a career in tech. In fact, I’d suggest that my career as an architect and the need to convey concepts and argue trade-offs with stakeholders of varying backgrounds has honed that skill. Should I now dumb down my language or deliberately introduce errors in order to satisfy the barely literate or avoid being “detected” as an AI? (as if the latter were possible. It’s an arms race).

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> Should I now dumb down my language or deliberately introduce errors Language is a tool. If it wins the argument, yes. I’ve absolutely gone back through drafts to tighten up language and reduce word complexity. And if I’m typing with someone who frequently typos, I’ll sometimes reverse the autocorrect. Mostly as a joke to myself. But I imagine it helps me come across as less stuck up. (Truth: I’m a bit stuck up about language :P.)
- phs318u 7mo ago
  > Language is a tool While this is true, it is not just a tool. Or, I should say it’s a tool with far greater utility than just winning an argument or making a localised point. Language is how we think, and the ability to reason well is absolutely dependent on our skill with language. Language is the mark of humanity in the sense that how else can I convey to you a fragment of my inner state? My emotions, my feelings, my desires. The language of poetry and literature. That which sparks an emotional response in another. Dumbing down language is dumbing down period.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > Dumbing down language is dumbing down period I agree. But I don’t always see it as dumbing down. James Joyce’s Portrait starts out with a lot of nonsense, that doesn’t mean it’s dumb or dumbed down. It’s just communicating something that is best described that way. Even to an erudite audience. I have expertise in some topics. I don’t think of communicating that in lay terms to be dumbing down. The opposite, almost: finding good analogies and expressing them clearly is a lot of fun, even if what comes out the other end isn’t particularly sophisticated.
    - phs318u 7mo ago
      Totally agree. But I’m seeing (or more sensitive to) increasing cohorts that can’t string two words together to express a single thought coherently. There’s a difference between adapting language and use of linguistic tools (such as metaphors) versus semi-coherent blathering. EDIT: spread > express Which may be a segue to a point regarding using corrective tools as a form of preemptive editing?

eszed 7mo ago

I think you're right, and I don't know what to think about it. I enjoy writing, aim to write clearly - a skill or discipline that took a lot of time to learn, and ongoing effort to maintain. I've never sent or posted anything AI-written, beyond a pro-forma job description - because I don't know the domain-specific conventions, and HR returned my draft to me with the instruction to use ChatGPT, which I think amusing, but whatever: the output satisfied them, and I was able to get on with my day. I occasionally experiment with putting something I've written through an LLM, and it's inevitably a blandifying of my original, which doesn't really say what I intended. But maybe that's good? My wife thinks I'm sometimes too blunt, and colleagues don't always appreciate being told technical details. I also appreciate individuated writing - including the posts by people on this board are not native speakers. Grammatical mistakes seldom inhibit understanding when the writing has been done with care. I'm rambling at this point, but it's because I'm truly uncertain how these cultural changes will turn out, and (an old man's complaint, since time immemorial!) pretty sure I'll end up one of the last of the dinosaurs, clinging to my manually written "voice" long after everyone else in the world has come to see my preferences quaint.

antonvs 7mo ago

If knowing how to speak and write my native language well makes me a “snob”, so be it. But I don’t think I’m the problem in that case.

ThrowawayR2 7mo ago

The "L" in LLM stands for "language". If they are unable to express themselves in English (or whatever their native language is) fluently, they won't be able to prompt LLMs fluently and will be, in the debased patois of modern youth, "cooked". It's a self-correcting problem.