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

LLMs can get "brain rot"

llm-brain-rot.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 310 posts

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#131

Post by heavyset_go »

itsnowandnever wrote: post #99
standardly wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is indeed an LLM-written sentence — not only does it employ an em dash, but also lists objects in a series — twice within the same sentence — typical LLM behavior that renders its output conspicuous, obvious, and readily apparent to HN readers.

why do they always say "not only" or "it isn't just x but also y and z"? I hated that disingenuous verbosity BEFORE these LLMs out and now it'll all over the place. I saw a post on linked in that was literally just like 10+ statements of "X isn't just Y, it's etc..." and thought I was having a stroke

They're turns of phrase I see a lot in opinion articles and the like. The purpose is to take a popular framing and reframe it along the lines of the author's own ideas.

LLMs fundamentally don't get the human reasons behind its use, see it a lot because it's effective writing, and regurgitate it robotically.

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#132

Post by b33j0r »

standardly wrote: post #93
avazhi wrote: post #47

“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain training corpora so deployed systems stay sharp, reliable, and aligned over time.” An LLM-written line if I’ve ever seen one. Looks like the authors have their own brainrot to contend with.

That is indeed an LLM-written sentence — not only does it employ an em dash, but also lists objects in a series — twice within the same sentence — typical LLM behavior that renders its output conspicuous, obvious, and readily apparent to HN readers.

I talked like that before this happened, and now I just feel like my diction has been maligned :p

I think it’s because I was a pretty sheltered kid who got A’s in AP english. The style we’re calling “obviously AI” is most like William Faulkner and other turn-of-the-20th-century writing, that bloggers and texters stopped using.

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#133

Post by dingnuts »

b33j0r wrote: post #132
standardly wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is indeed an LLM-written sentence — not only does it employ an em dash, but also lists objects in a series — twice within the same sentence — typical LLM behavior that renders its output conspicuous, obvious, and readily apparent to HN readers.

I talked like that before this happened, and now I just feel like my diction has been maligned :p I think it’s because I was a pretty sheltered kid who got A’s in AP english. The style we’re calling “obviously AI” is most like William Faulkner and other turn-of-the-20th-century writing, that bloggers and texters stopped using.

IDK all the breathless "it's not just X, it's Y --" reminds me of press releases

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#134

Post by mtillman »

avazhi wrote: post #47

“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain training corpora so deployed systems stay sharp, reliable, and aligned over time.” An LLM-written line if I’ve ever seen one. Looks like the authors have their own brainrot to contend with.

I recently saw someone on HN comment about LLMs using “training” in quotes but no quotes for thinking or reasoning.

Making my (totally rad fwiw) Fiero look like a Ferrari does not make it a Ferrari.

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#135

Post by numpad0 »

Not surprising that trending tweets as data is junk, not only from brainrots-be-brainrots perspective: trending tweets are contextual. They don't make sense without the rest of the timeline.

And now I know why bots on Twitter don't even work, even with humans in it - they're shooting blind.

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#136

Post by dwaltrip »

askafriend wrote: post #48
avazhi wrote: post #47

“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain training corpora so deployed systems stay sharp, reliable, and aligned over time.” An LLM-written line if I’ve ever seen one. Looks like the authors have their own brainrot to contend with.

If it conveys the intended information then what's wrong with that? You're fighting a tsunami here. People are going to use LLMs to help their writing now and forever.

Because it sounds like shit? Taste matters, especially in the age of generative AI.

And it doesn’t convey information that well, to be honest.

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#137

Post by mvdtnz »

avazhi wrote: post #47

“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain training corpora so deployed systems stay sharp, reliable, and aligned over time.” An LLM-written line if I’ve ever seen one. Looks like the authors have their own brainrot to contend with.

What is actually up with the "it's not just X, it's Y" cliche from LLMs? Supposedly these things are trained on all of the text on the internet yet this is not a phrasing I read pretty much anywhere, ever, outside of LLM content. Where are they getting this from?

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#138

Post by dwaltrip »

askafriend wrote: post #51
binary132 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The brainrot apologists have arrived

Why shouldn't the author use LLMs to assist their writing? The issue is how tools are used, not that they are used at all.

The paragraph in question is a very poor use of the tool.

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#139

Post by b33j0r »

dingnuts wrote: post #133
b33j0r wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talked like that before this happened, and now I just feel like my diction has been maligned :p I think it’s because I was a pretty sheltered kid who got A’s in AP english. The style we’re calling “obviously AI” is most like William Faulkner and other turn-of-the-20th-century writing, that bloggers and texters stopped using.

IDK all the breathless "it's not just X, it's Y --" reminds me of press releases

Yeah it was trained on bullshit more than Faulkner for sure. +1 you.

Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"

#140

Post by snickerbockers »

mtillman wrote: post #134
avazhi wrote: post #47

“Studying “Brain Rot” for LLMs isn’t just a catchy metaphor—it reframes data curation as cognitive hygiene for AI, guiding how we source, filter, and maintain training corpora so deployed systems stay sharp, reliable, and aligned over time.” An LLM-written line if I’ve ever seen one. Looks like the authors have their own brainrot to contend with.

I recently saw someone on HN comment about LLMs using “training” in quotes but no quotes for thinking or reasoning. Making my (totally rad fwiw) Fiero look like a Ferrari does not make it a Ferrari.

I like to call it tuning, it's more accurate to the way they "learn" by adjusting coefficients and also there's no proven similarity between any existing AI and human cognition.

Sometimes I wonder if any second order control system would qualify as "AI" under the extremely vague definition of the term.

Post reply on HN