391–400 of 650 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hot take -- I'm glad that LLMs still tend to have recognizable communication patterns, because they're often the only clue I have to filter AI content.
If the next generation of AI content produced no recognizable LLM patterns, and was indistinguishable from an actual human author, would you still care and try to determine whether the content was AI produced?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't use Claude for a long time, but my coworkers did, so I got infected through a side channel: I ended up reading their vibed docs, noticed "load-bearing", kind of liked it, and started using it in conversation, until I got feedback that I was "talking like Claude", so now I avoid the phrase entirely. The intersection of language and social norms is interesting.
Yes, I had a related experience of reading a book and observing what I thought were claude-isms, only to realize it was written in 2019. Some of the common tells are actually good writing practices, but I guess they are best in smaller doses.
But the LLMs really seem to fixate on using the same ones in the same places all the time. I guess that's because that's the highest probability construction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An LLM is just a machine, you can manipulate it with words. > It can be tricky for humans to interpret the meaning when Generative AI uses first-person pronouns (e.g. "I", "me", "my", "myself") These words are for the LLM. The user wants the LLM to not use personal pronouns so the user is claiming that they're confusing. It does not matter one tiny bit whether or not that claim is true, the claim is being used to get…
Calling it "obedience" still seems to me like anthropomorphizing. It's really difficult to avoid, hmm?
As I've said before, I'm not inventing a large volume of parallel vocabulary that means for each word "this, but instead with an LLM".
Language is FULL of words that mean congruent things in vastly different contexts. We should all be smart enough to understand metaphor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it might be even worse. LLMs seem to get tragically stuck on certain patterns. Maybe it's partly because a pile of weights essentially always starts from scratch in the same condition, but even within a single conversation, it will literally just latch onto words and repeat them incessantly, to the point where it becomes annoying. So for example, current Claude models love "honest". They are always producing…
Claude's "honest" is an interesting example because we can trace it to a specific document that it was trained on extensively: the "Constitution" is identified to Claude in its training as the core of what it is, and it uses the word "honest" or a derivative 57 times, including having a whole section on it. > Honesty is a core aspect of our vision for Claude’s ethical character. Indeed, while we want Claude’s honesty…
I'm sure the concept seemed just about purely preposterous to many when the models were in their infancy. Now I figure instead it seems mostly preposterous to many.
(Though I guess Anthropic‘s success doesn’t necessarily prove anything about the constitution)
replacements = {
"seam": "whatchamacallit",
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Why say honest? We're talking to our coworkers. We would always be honest." I grew up in the US South where starting or ending a sentence with "honest/honestly" was very common. Because of behavioral / cultural norms, you might be very openly friendly with big smiles around a business customer that really grates on your nerves, or very openly nice to a neighbor that you really wish would move away and take their 3…
I recall having a conversation with someone many moons ago. They asked me a very weighty and significant question, and I answered it. Then they asked me to "promise". This was really thought-provoking for me. To this day, it's the only part I remember. I told them I would not promise, as everything I said was true. Making a specific promise would create an implication that I'm generally untruthful, unless I "promise"…
I also could understand when a response hits someone like a ton of bricks, especially if their primal reaction is to go into denial mode. They might be looking for someone to kind of shake them and emphatically repeat the information they aren't thrilled about receiving. (or are thrilled about receiving! “Don’t get my hopes up, you’re serious right now?!“) And I imagine your response suited the purpose.
It’s classic you only remember the thought-provoking part. Reminded of “…people will remember how you made them feel…“
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the next generation of AI content produced no recognizable LLM patterns, and was indistinguishable from an actual human author, would you still care and try to determine whether the content was AI produced?
I’ve asked essentially the same question many times to many people, the short answer is “yes” because it’s a matter of ideology not logic for them. I get just as mad about shitty human output as I do about shitty LLM output. The bad thing about LLMs is that they have increased the volume of shit most people have to sift through. When you open a requirements doc and it’s got 13 load bearing em dashes on the first page…
To me, it's disrespectful to expect someone to waste their day reading every word of a blog post when even the author has not read every word. It shows that you value your time over your reader's time.
I do not mind when I am coding with Claude and it uses all the typical claudisms. I am much more bothered when I am reading a blog post, email, or other form of prose and I see those same claudisms. I guess they are not annoying since I know I am talking to an LLM and expect the typical responses. When I am reading prose online that I previously would have expected a human to write, it can be quite jarring to realize…
I didn't use Claude for a long time, but my coworkers did, so I got infected through a side channel: I ended up reading their vibed docs, noticed "load-bearing", kind of liked it, and started using it in conversation, until I got feedback that I was "talking like Claude", so now I avoid the phrase entirely. The intersection of language and social norms is interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hot take -- I'm glad that LLMs still tend to have recognizable communication patterns, because they're often the only clue I have to filter AI content.
If the next generation of AI content produced no recognizable LLM patterns, and was indistinguishable from an actual human author, would you still care and try to determine whether the content was AI produced?