3 ms·

Very depressing, and I believe it. I am a bit of a luddite in this domain and have so far managed to resist the lure of using the generator to expand my though

by somat 20d ago

Very depressing, and I believe it. I am a bit of a luddite in this domain and have so far managed to resist the lure of using the generator to expand my thoughts, and I still catch myself writing "it's not just an X it's a Y" and other generator type tells. If it infecting my patterns it is totally entering the wider subconscious as "How to write" (Sighs)

jbeninger 20d ago
That's not a generator tell when used judiciously. It's a genuinely useful construction that's been poisoned by overgeneration.
- masswerk 20d ago
  That's the flaw in RLHF: constructs tagged as effective or sophisticated speech become templates, are increasingly used out of context (e.g., "not just A, not just B, but C" is usually meant to provide some synthesis and further the progress of the text) and suffer from significant overexposure. (And gone is the em-dash…)
  - knollimar 20d ago
    I think the grating one is that it's constructed to sound effective when it shouldn't! Good points should be rewarded confidence. I read so many not X it's Y where the distinction beteeen X and Y isn't relevant to the discussion!
- pessimizer 19d ago
  It's bad in and of itself the way LLMs use it. They separate it into a weird declaration when it's usually something you'd say at the beginning and/or end of a paragraph or passage where you're making a case for that statement. It's part of how LLMs often seem to repeat the same thing over and over again. Most arguments are X is Y (and the others are X is not Y, or X is likely Y), and LLMs lean on "X is Y" because it is the most distilled form of that argument - a thesis minus the meat. Also "This is not a Y, this is a Z." They're just thesis sentences inserted in inappropriate locations. The reason it makes them overdramatic is because separated from the argument, they seem like they should be premises. Conclusions without premises have the feeling of demands.
alan-crowe 20d ago
The question is: how did your test reader respond to the version without the "It's not just an X, it's a Y." ? Perhaps the discussion went: Test Reader: I got confused when you started talking about X as though it were a Y. Author: But it is a Y. I should flag that up, where I introduce it. Alternatively, the test reader comments The villains monologue wasn't unhinged enough. He says that making himself universal dictator is democratic because he gives people what they secretly desire. I feel he would express himself with more empty rhetoric. Author: Agreed. I'll add "It's not just democratic, it's not just super-democratic, it's ultra-democratic!!!" Test Reader: Scary! The error lies in using "It's not just an X it's a Y." for emphasis rather than to ward off a likely misreading.

by somat 20d ago

jbeninger 20d ago

That's not a generator tell when used judiciously. It's a genuinely useful construction that's been poisoned by overgeneration.

masswerk 20d ago
That's the flaw in RLHF: constructs tagged as effective or sophisticated speech become templates, are increasingly used out of context (e.g., "not just A, not just B, but C" is usually meant to provide some synthesis and further the progress of the text) and suffer from significant overexposure. (And gone is the em-dash…)
- knollimar 20d ago
  I think the grating one is that it's constructed to sound effective when it shouldn't! Good points should be rewarded confidence. I read so many not X it's Y where the distinction beteeen X and Y isn't relevant to the discussion!
pessimizer 19d ago
It's bad in and of itself the way LLMs use it. They separate it into a weird declaration when it's usually something you'd say at the beginning and/or end of a paragraph or passage where you're making a case for that statement. It's part of how LLMs often seem to repeat the same thing over and over again. Most arguments are X is Y (and the others are X is not Y, or X is likely Y), and LLMs lean on "X is Y" because it is the most distilled form of that argument - a thesis minus the meat. Also "This is not a Y, this is a Z." They're just thesis sentences inserted in inappropriate locations. The reason it makes them overdramatic is because separated from the argument, they seem like they should be premises. Conclusions without premises have the feeling of demands.

alan-crowe 20d ago

The question is: how did your test reader respond to the version without the "It's not just an X, it's a Y." ? Perhaps the discussion went: Test Reader: I got confused when you started talking about X as though it were a Y. Author: But it is a Y. I should flag that up, where I introduce it. Alternatively, the test reader comments The villains monologue wasn't unhinged enough. He says that making himself universal dictator is democratic because he gives people what they secretly desire. I feel he would express himself with more empty rhetoric. Author: Agreed. I'll add "It's not just democratic, it's not just super-democratic, it's ultra-democratic!!!" Test Reader: Scary! The error lies in using "It's not just an X it's a Y." for emphasis rather than to ward off a likely misreading.