4 ms·

Because LLMs use it constantly, to the point that it sets my teeth on edge and instantly makes me question if reading the piece is worth my time.

by simonw 6mo ago

falcor84 6mo ago
But LLMs were literally evolved via RLHF to write in a way that humans find agreeable. Can't we just move past this aversion and accept "writing like an LLM" as generally good writing style advice?
- simonw 6mo ago
  The reason this particular quirk annoys me so much is that it isn't good writing advice. Consider the two examples from this article (which may well have been human-written for all I know): "These numbers come from OpenAI itself. There is no independent audit, no time series, no disclosed methodology, so we have no idea..." No time series? That's non-sensical to me, it feels like that's there just to fill the quota of three things. Plus why would we assume an "independent audit" until told otherwise? Then in the weird table, for "Institutional infrastructure" against "Personal AI safety": "Scattered across psychology, HCI, education, and clinical informatics departments. No dedicated institute, no named fellowship, no equivalent job board." Again, "no X" in a pattern or 3. And non-sensical - why would the fellowship be named? It's word salad, there to fill a three-nos quota.
  - falcor84 6mo ago
    Yeah, no, I absolutely agree with you that TFA is not an examplar of good writing. But would just argue that the problem has little to do with these snowclone patterns or the rule of 3, and a lot more with the actual substance not fitting the form, and arguably not being substantive at all. I'm all for rejecting bad writing and bad reasoning, but just wouldn't us as a community to get into the habit of rejecting otherwise good writing just because it's AI-ish.
- amoe_ 6mo ago
  The difference is that these rhetorical techniques need to be used with taste. LLMs just sprinkle them everywhere to try to make their copy sound good, even when it's completely inappropriate tone-wise. They don't make higher level judgements about when to employ specific features.
Yokohiii 6mo ago
Idk, I remember that writing pattern from GPT, but not from Gemini.

Because LLMs use it constantly, to the point that it sets my teeth on edge and instantly makes me question if reading the piece is worth my time.

by simonw 6mo ago

Because LLMs use it constantly, to the point that it sets my teeth on edge and instantly makes me question if reading the piece is worth my time.

falcor84 6mo ago

But LLMs were literally evolved via RLHF to write in a way that humans find agreeable. Can't we just move past this aversion and accept "writing like an LLM" as generally good writing style advice?

simonw 6mo ago
The reason this particular quirk annoys me so much is that it isn't good writing advice. Consider the two examples from this article (which may well have been human-written for all I know): "These numbers come from OpenAI itself. There is no independent audit, no time series, no disclosed methodology, so we have no idea..." No time series? That's non-sensical to me, it feels like that's there just to fill the quota of three things. Plus why would we assume an "independent audit" until told otherwise? Then in the weird table, for "Institutional infrastructure" against "Personal AI safety": "Scattered across psychology, HCI, education, and clinical informatics departments. No dedicated institute, no named fellowship, no equivalent job board." Again, "no X" in a pattern or 3. And non-sensical - why would the fellowship be named? It's word salad, there to fill a three-nos quota.
- falcor84 6mo ago
  Yeah, no, I absolutely agree with you that TFA is not an examplar of good writing. But would just argue that the problem has little to do with these snowclone patterns or the rule of 3, and a lot more with the actual substance not fitting the form, and arguably not being substantive at all. I'm all for rejecting bad writing and bad reasoning, but just wouldn't us as a community to get into the habit of rejecting otherwise good writing just because it's AI-ish.
amoe_ 6mo ago
The difference is that these rhetorical techniques need to be used with taste. LLMs just sprinkle them everywhere to try to make their copy sound good, even when it's completely inappropriate tone-wise. They don't make higher level judgements about when to employ specific features.

Yokohiii 6mo ago

Idk, I remember that writing pattern from GPT, but not from Gemini.