Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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…
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/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.