Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 234 posts

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#111

Post by Terretta »

delis-thumbs-7e wrote: post #42

I personally think “generative AI” is a misnomer. More I understand the mathematics behind machine learning more I am convinced that it should not be used to generate text, images or anything that is meant for people to consume, even if it is the most blandest of email. Sometimes you might get lucky, but most of the time you only get what the most boring person in the most boring cocktail party would say if forced to…

> most of the time you only get what the most boring person in the most boring cocktail party would say

don't be mean, it's median AI à la mode

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#112

Post by layer8 »

lich_king wrote: post #95
svara wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that mostly depends on how good a writer you are. A lot of people aren't, and the AI legitimately writes better. As in, the prose is easier to understand, free of obvious errors or ambiguities. But then, the writing is also never great. I've tried a couple of times to get it to write in the style of a famous author, sometimes pasting in some example text to model the output on, but it never sounds right.

I am really conflicted about this because yes, I think that an LLM can be an OK writing aid in utilitarian settings. It's probably not going to teach you to write better, but if the goal is just to communicate an idea, an LLM can usually help the average person express it more clearly. But the critical point is that you need to stay in control. And a lot of people just delegate the entire process to an LLM: "here's a…

Even if they “stay in control and own the result”, it’s just tedious if all communication is in that same undifferentiated sanded-down language.

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#114

Post by dingnuts »

baxtr wrote: post #103
barrkel wrote: post #3

This is a good statement of what I suspect many of us have found when rejecting the rewriting advice of AIs. The "pointiness" of prose gets worn away, until it doesn't say much. Everything is softened. The distinctiveness of the human voice is converted into blandness. The AI even says its preferred rephrasing is "polished" - a term which specifically means the jaggedness has been removed. But it's the jagged edges,…

I think it’s essential to realize that AI is a tool for mainstream tasks like composing a standard email and not for the edges. The edges are where interesting stuff happens. The boring part can be made more efficient. I don’t need to type boring emails, people who can’t articulate well will be elevated. It’s the efficient popularization of the boring stuff. Not much else.

[dead]

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#115

Post by lurquer »

Selkirk wrote: post #87
co_king_5 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

I have a colleague that recently self-published a book. I can easily tell which parts were LLM driven and which parts represent his own voice. Just like you can tell who's in the next stall in the bathroom at work after hearing just a grunt and a fart. And THAT is a sentence an LLM would not write.

> And THAT is a sentence an LLM would not write.

Really?

Here's some alternatives. Some are clunky. But, some aren't.

…just like you can tell whose pubes those are on the shared bar of soap without launching a formal investigation.

…just like you can tell who just wanked in the shared bathroom by the specific guilt radiating off them when they finally emerge.

…just like you can tell which of your mates just shitted at the pub by who's suddenly walking like they're auditioning for a period drama.

…just like you can tell which coworker just had a wank on their lunch break by the post-nut serenity that no amount of hand-washing can disguise.

…just like you can tell whose sneeze left that slug trail on the conference room table by the specific way they're not making eye contact with it.

…just like you can identify which flatmate's cum sock you've accidentally stepped on by the vintage of the crunch.

…just like you can tell who just crop-dusted the elevator by the studied intensity with which one person is suddenly reading the inspection certificate.

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#116

Post by dsf2d »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #66
PurpleRamen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet we're not seeing any collapse, despite models being trained mainly on synthetic data for the past 2 years. Maybe because researchers learned from the paper to avoid the collapse? Just awareness alone often helps to sidestep a problem.

No one did what the paper actually proposed. It was a nothing burger in the industry. Yet it was insanely popular on social media. Same with the "llms don't reason" from "Apple" (two interns working at Apple, but anyway). The media went nuts over it, even though it was littered with implementation mistakes and not worth the paper it was(n't) printed on.

Who cares? This is a place where you should be putting forth your own perspective based on your own experience. Not parotting what someone else already wrote.

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#117

Post by matternous »

lurquer wrote: post #28

Nonsense. I’ve written bland prose for a story and AI made it much better by revising it with a prompt such as this: “Make the vocabulary and grammar more sophisticated and add in interesting metaphors. Rewrite it in the style of a successful literary author.” Etc.

Why don't you post it so we can see how much better the AI made it?

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#118

Post by Terretta »

barrkel wrote: post #38
simonw wrote: post #6

I'd like to see some concrete examples that illustrate this - as it stands this feels like an opinion piece that doesn't attempt to back up its claims. (Not necessarily disagreeing with those claims, but I'd like to see a more robust exploration of them.)

Have you not seen it any time you put any substantial bit of your own writing through an LLM, for advice? I disagree pretty strongly with most of what an LLM suggests by way of rewriting. They're absolutely appalling writers. If you're looking for something beyond corporate safespeak or stylistic pastiche, they drain the blood out of everything. The skin of their prose lacks the luminous translucency, the subsurface…

> If you're looking for something beyond corporate safespeak or stylistic pastiche, they drain the blood out of everything.

Strong agree, which is why I disagree with this OP point:

“Stage 2: Lexical flattening. Domain-specific jargon and high-precision technical terms are sacrificed for "accessibility." The model performs a statistical substitution, replacing a 1-of-10,000 token with a 1-of-100 synonym, effectively diluting the semantic density and specific gravity of the argument.”

I see enough jargon in everyday business email that in the office zero-shot LLM unspoolings can feel refreshing.

I have "avoid jargon and buzzwords" as one of very tiny tuners in my LLM prefs. I've found LLMs can shed corporate safespeak, or even add a touch of sparkle back to a corporate memo.

Otherwise very bright writers have been "polished" to remove all interestingness by pre-LLM corporate homogenization. Give them a prompt to yell at them for using 1-in-10 words instead of 1-in-10,000 "perplexity" and they can tune themselves back to conveying more with the same word count. Results… scintillate.

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#119

Post by dsf2d »

matwood wrote: post #105
barrkel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you not seen it any time you put any substantial bit of your own writing through an LLM, for advice? I disagree pretty strongly with most of what an LLM suggests by way of rewriting. They're absolutely appalling writers. If you're looking for something beyond corporate safespeak or stylistic pastiche, they drain the blood out of everything. The skin of their prose lacks the luminous translucency, the subsurface…

> If you're looking for something beyond corporate safespeak AI has been great for removing this stress. "Tell Joe no f'n way" in a professional tone and I can move on with my day.

Yeah but does it make sense to have invested all this money for this?

Lol no. Might be great for you as a consumer who is using these products for free. But expand the picture more.

Re: Semantic ablation: Why AI writing is generic and boring

#120

Post by gnutrino »

rorylaitila wrote: post #19

Yes I noticed this as well. I was last writing up a landing page for our new studio. Emotion filled. Telling a story. I sent it through grok to improve it. It removed all of the character despite whatever prompt I gave. I'm not a great writer, but I think those rough edges are necessary to convey the soul of the concept. I think AI writing is better used for ideation and "what have I missed?" and then write out the c…

I've found LLMs to be terrible with ideation. I've been using GPT 5.x to come up with ideas and plot lines for a Dungeon World campaign I've been running.

I'm no fantasy author, and my prose leaves much to be desired. The stuff the LLM comes up with is so mind numbingly bland. I've given up on having it write descriptions of any characters or locations. I just use it for very general ideas and plot lines, and then come up with the rest of the details on the fly myself. The plot lines and ideas it comes up with are very generic and bland. I mainly do it just to save time, but I throw away 50% of the "ideas" because they make no sense or are really lame.

What i have found LLMs to be helpful with is writing up fun post-session recaps I share with the adventurers.

I recap in my own words what happened during the session, then have the LLM structure it into a "fun to read" narrative style. ChatGPT seems to prefer a Sanderson jokey tone, but I could probably tailor this.

Then I go through it, and tweak some of the boring / bland bits. The end result is really fun to read, and took 1/20th the time it would have taken me to write it all out myself. The LLM would have never been able to come up with the unique and fun story lines, but it is good at making an existing story have some narrative flare in a short amount of time.

Post reply on HN