3 ms·
> detractors-for-no-good-reason It's partly just a matter of taste; we can disagree on whether that's a good reason, but I'd be surprised if there were no writ
by retsibsi 7mo ago
> detractors-for-no-good-reason
It's partly just a matter of taste; we can disagree on whether that's a good reason, but I'd be surprised if there were no writing styles that you personally find offputting.
The LLM smell is also a signal of low effort, and a signal that we as readers can't rely on our usual heuristics for judging credibility. The whole thing with LLMs is that they're great at producing polished, plausible-looking outputs, but they're still prone to bullshitting and making errors that don't match the usual human patterns. (And of course they're a great tool for churning out human-initiated disinformation.) If you don't have any kind of immune response against the LLM smell, I reckon you're probably absorbing more bs than you realise.
- skeledrew 7mo ago> signal of low effort Is low effort really a valuable signal though? Or is it what's actually in the content that's valuable? Like here readers are literally saying that they found the content valuable "but AI smell". Why is there a "but"? Would there be a similar issue if the author had contracted a human assistant to do X? Definitely not, and I see no reason why the treatment should be different for AI.