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

121–130 of 234 posts

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

#121

Post by notepad0x90 »

Isn't this more to do with how LLMs are trained for general purpose use? Are LLMs with a specific use and dataset in mind better? Like if the dataset was fiction novels, would it sound more booky? If it was social-media, would it sound more click-baity and engaging?

I've had AI be boring, but I've also seen things like original jokes that were legitimately funny. Maybe it's the prompts people use, it doesn't give it enough of a semantic and dialectic direction to not be generic. IRL, we look at a person and get a feel for them and the situation to determine those things.

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

#122

Post by vpribish »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #11

The "AI voice" is everywhere now. I see it on recent blog posts, on news articles, obituaries, YT channels. Sometimes mixed with voice impersonation of famous physicists like Feynman or Susskind. I find it genuinely soul-crushing and even depressing, but I may be over sensitive to it as most readers don't seem to notice.

same. it is showing how many people are not trying to participate - just appear to. I want to read from and write for my peers, but it seems we are just awash with fakers

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

#123

Post by tasty_freeze »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #41
tasty_freeze wrote: post #23

Bible Scholar and youtube guy Dan McClellan had an amazing "high entropy" phrase that slayed me a few days ago. https://youtu.be/605MhQdS7NE?si=IKMNuSU1c1uaVCDB&t=730 He ended a critical commentary by suggesting that the author he was responding to should think more critically about the topic rather than repeating falsehoods because "they set off the tuning fork in the loins of your own dogmatism." Yeah, AI could not…

A sloppy mixed metaphor?

I thought it was more creative than sloppy. Don't forget that many ordinary phrases were once jarring mixed imagery. To "wear your heart on your sleeve" was coined by Shakespeare; we still use it because it "stuck" due to its unorthodox phrasing.

If you like your prose to be anodyne, then maybe you like what AI produces.

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

#124

Post by marbro »

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…

[dead]

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

#125

Post by littlestymaar »

svara wrote: post #84
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 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.

> A lot of people aren't, and the AI legitimately writes better.

It may write “objectively better”, but the very distinct feel of all AI generated prose makes it immediately recognizable as artificial and unbearable as a result.

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

#126

Post by AreShoesFeet000 »

Angostura wrote: post #110
AreShoesFeet000 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because even though at work it looks like you’re tasked with creating use values, you’re only there as long as the use values you create can be exchanged in the market for a profit. So every humane drive to genuinely improve your work will clash with the external conditions of your existence within that setting. You’re not there to serve people, create beautiful things, solve problems, nu-uh. You’re there to keep cap…

Unless you work in the public sector, non-profit or charity.

To think that “non-profit” work is actually non-profit work is just to not have grasped the nature of labor. You have to ask yourself: Am I producing use values for the satisfaction of human needs or am I working on making sure the appropriation of value extraction from the production of use values continues happening?

In some very extreme cases, such as in the Red Cross or reformist organizations, your job looks very clear, direct, and “soulful”. You’re directly helping desperate people. But why have people gotten into that situation? What is the downstream effect of having you helping them. It’s profit. It’s always profit. You’re salvaging humanity for parts to be bought and sold again. It doesn’t make a dishonest work. It’s just equally soulless.

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

#128

Post by lurquer »

matternous wrote: post #117
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?

Because HN isn't a literary forum.

Maybe it sucks. Maybe it doesn't.

But, I notice a curious pretentiousness when it comes to some people's assumptions about their ability to identify LLM prose. Obviously, the generic first-pass 'chat' crap is recognizable; the kind of garbage that is filling up blog-posts on the internet.

But, one shouldn't underestimate the power of this technology when it comes to language. Hell, the 'coding' skills were just a pleasant side-effect of the language training, if you recall. These things have been trained on millions of works of prose of all styles: its their heart and soul. If you think the superficial monotonous style is all there is, you're mistaken. Most of the obnoxious LLM-style stuff is an artifact of the conversational training with Kenyans and the like in the early days. But, you can easily break through that with better prompts (or fine-tuning it yourself.)

That said, one shouldn't conflate the creation of the content and structure and substance of a work of prose with the manner in which it is written. You're not going to get an LLM to come up with a decent plot... yet. But, as far as fleshing out the framework of a story in a synthetic 'voice' that sounds human? Definitely doable.

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

#129

Post by swyx »

co_king_5 wrote: post #100
swyx wrote: post #81

the word choice here is so obtuse as to trigger my radar for "is this some kind of parody where this itself was AI generated". it appears to be entirely serious, which is disappointing, it could have been high art. the words TFA is looking for is mode collapse https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/t9svvNPNmFf5Qa3TA/mysteries-... and the author could herself learn to write more clearly.

[dead]

not to my knowledge but those i have no problem with. its the overly complex prose surrounding them that shows this author overcorrects to SAT test words in an attempt to prove her superiority over ai writing and that has its own distastefulness.

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

#130

Post by simonw »

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…

The prompt I use for proof-reading has worked great for me so far:

  You are a proof reader for posts
  about to be published.

  1. Identify for spelling mistakes
  and typos
  2. Identify grammar mistakes
  3. Watch out for repeated terms like
  "It was interesting that X, and it
  was interesting that Y"
  4. Spot any logical errors or
  factual mistakes
  5. Highlight weak arguments that
  could be strengthened
  6. Make sure there are no empty or
  placeholder links
Post reply on HN