4 ms·

> AI polished it [...] Compared to purely human writing [...] reads better than you'd expect I'd hard disagree here. Not when you're bombarded with this every

> AI polished it [...] Compared to purely human writing [...] reads better than you'd expect I'd hard disagree here. Not when you're bombarded with this every single day. First, you start to be able to reliable recognize this writing style. Then, every time you see it you start getting the urge to pick up your chair and smash your monitor with it. There's also the issue of not being able to distinguish "AI slop" from "human written + AI polished". Am I being led to read some lazy, low quality AI slop? Or is this actually something that a real human spent time and effort to produce? Both look the same, so how can you tell the difference? Personally I find it somewhat offensive to use AI in human-to-human communication. If you expect another person to read it then please write it yourself! It's not going to be as "polished" as-if AI would have written it, but that's okay! If you insist on using AI then, at most, just get it to review your writing and apply its findings wherever it makes sense.

jdw64 3mo ago
I can recognize it too. For example, there's that particular archetype where the writing summarizes things by leading with a block quote. But I don't think that's a bad thing. To be honest, I actually think some AI style of speaking is effective for conveying information. People can have different opinions, of course. I write most things with my own hands. But if I feel like the AI's suggestion is better than what I wrote, I'll improve my writing. In fact, I did exactly that with a few pieces recently. I respect that some people prefer things unpolished, and I respect their way of thinking. But I don't think that flat, AI assisted writing is bad for information delivery. I believe there are many different kinds of writing. In novels or reportage, I think AI writing is bad. The style itself is part of the author's signature, after all. But on the flip side, I'm skeptical about whether someone's personality really needs to come through in a wiki or an encyclopedia. The core of the anti AI argument right now is ultimately about form and style. But that style is something the model was trained on, based on datasets that people, on average, preferred. In other words, it's the most average, the most flat. It's inorganic, but it's the median. When we define readers or consumers, there's always the question of where to draw the line, what segment to set. And when you think about it, the AI's training data comes from the broadest consumer distribution. It spits out that kind of data because it learned that most people preferred it. Of course, even in informational writing, things like "has this person actually been through this?" or "is this exaggerated?" do matter, and that feeling is important. But when I read a technical article, the most important thing, unlike a novel, isn't the prose style. It's whether it hands me the technique or not. So while I respect your opinion, I don't think it aligns with my values.
- kouteiheika 3mo ago
  > In other words, it's the most average, the most flat. [..] And when you think about it, the AI's training data comes from the broadest consumer distribution. It spits out that kind of data because it learned that most people preferred it. That's not what it is! The heavy reinforcement learning that the models go through makes their writing the farthest thing possible from the "most average, flat" distribution. The distribution actually becomes very sharp due to this, unlike any writing it has seen in 99.99% of its training data! (The heavier the RL is, the more same-y the output becomes.) This is why every AI-written piece feels the same, and why people can learn to easily tell that something was written by an AI. And frontier labs make this problem even worse by how they sample[1] their logits. [1]: https://gist.github.com/Hellisotherpeople/71ba712f9f899adcb08b94bce20d5397 https://gist.github.com/Hellisotherpeople/71ba712f9f899adcb0... > But when I read a technical article, the most important thing, unlike a novel, isn't the prose style. Exactly! Which is why I think there's no need to "enhance" it with AI.
  - jdw64 3mo ago
    Thank you for pointing out something I didn't know. That said, I do think there are some issues with it, just as you mentioned. I think it's a simulacrum and simulation problem. I recently had a chance to teach some students, and I noticed their writing was starting to resemble AI generated text. The reason was that the AI was guiding their learning, and the students ended up picking up the AI's way of speaking. Honestly, you can't rule out that kind of issue, and the homogenization of voice is definitely a valid concern too. Opinions on what counts as "improvement" will vary from person to person, but I do think the problems you've raised can't be completely dismissed. Thanks for the insight, and I'll take the time to read through the links you shared. Have a good day.
- MattPalmer1086 3mo ago
  For me the core of the anti AI argument has nothing to do with form and style - although that is how AI writing can often be identified. Its much simpler - if you cant be bothered to write it, I cant be bothered to read it. There is no communication happening otherwise. I can enter a prompt on my own.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

jdw64 3mo ago

I can recognize it too. For example, there's that particular archetype where the writing summarizes things by leading with a block quote. But I don't think that's a bad thing. To be honest, I actually think some AI style of speaking is effective for conveying information. People can have different opinions, of course. I write most things with my own hands. But if I feel like the AI's suggestion is better than what I wrote, I'll improve my writing. In fact, I did exactly that with a few pieces recently. I respect that some people prefer things unpolished, and I respect their way of thinking. But I don't think that flat, AI assisted writing is bad for information delivery. I believe there are many different kinds of writing. In novels or reportage, I think AI writing is bad. The style itself is part of the author's signature, after all. But on the flip side, I'm skeptical about whether someone's personality really needs to come through in a wiki or an encyclopedia. The core of the anti AI argument right now is ultimately about form and style. But that style is something the model was trained on, based on datasets that people, on average, preferred. In other words, it's the most average, the most flat. It's inorganic, but it's the median. When we define readers or consumers, there's always the question of where to draw the line, what segment to set. And when you think about it, the AI's training data comes from the broadest consumer distribution. It spits out that kind of data because it learned that most people preferred it. Of course, even in informational writing, things like "has this person actually been through this?" or "is this exaggerated?" do matter, and that feeling is important. But when I read a technical article, the most important thing, unlike a novel, isn't the prose style. It's whether it hands me the technique or not. So while I respect your opinion, I don't think it aligns with my values.

kouteiheika 3mo ago
> In other words, it's the most average, the most flat. [..] And when you think about it, the AI's training data comes from the broadest consumer distribution. It spits out that kind of data because it learned that most people preferred it. That's not what it is! The heavy reinforcement learning that the models go through makes their writing the farthest thing possible from the "most average, flat" distribution. The distribution actually becomes very sharp due to this, unlike any writing it has seen in 99.99% of its training data! (The heavier the RL is, the more same-y the output becomes.) This is why every AI-written piece feels the same, and why people can learn to easily tell that something was written by an AI. And frontier labs make this problem even worse by how they sample[1] their logits. [1]: https://gist.github.com/Hellisotherpeople/71ba712f9f899adcb08b94bce20d5397 https://gist.github.com/Hellisotherpeople/71ba712f9f899adcb0... > But when I read a technical article, the most important thing, unlike a novel, isn't the prose style. Exactly! Which is why I think there's no need to "enhance" it with AI.
- jdw64 3mo ago
  Thank you for pointing out something I didn't know. That said, I do think there are some issues with it, just as you mentioned. I think it's a simulacrum and simulation problem. I recently had a chance to teach some students, and I noticed their writing was starting to resemble AI generated text. The reason was that the AI was guiding their learning, and the students ended up picking up the AI's way of speaking. Honestly, you can't rule out that kind of issue, and the homogenization of voice is definitely a valid concern too. Opinions on what counts as "improvement" will vary from person to person, but I do think the problems you've raised can't be completely dismissed. Thanks for the insight, and I'll take the time to read through the links you shared. Have a good day.
MattPalmer1086 3mo ago
For me the core of the anti AI argument has nothing to do with form and style - although that is how AI writing can often be identified. Its much simpler - if you cant be bothered to write it, I cant be bothered to read it. There is no communication happening otherwise. I can enter a prompt on my own.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]