"Trivial or Unchallenging Content" (points to Twitter). I love it.
LLMs can get "brain rot"
181–190 of 310 posts
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#182“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 think using large language models really accelerates mental atrophy. It's like when you use an input method for a long time, it automatically completes words for you, and then one day when you pick up a pen to write, you find you can't remember how to spell the words. However, the main point in the article is that we need to feed high-quality data to large language models. This view is actually a consensus, isn't i…
Also if you've built the perfect filter for context haven't you just built a real ai?
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#183“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.
HR people have been speaking that way long before LLMs.
Did you already update and align your OKR’s? Is your career accelerating from 360 degree peer review, continuous improvement, competency management, and excellence in execution? Do you review your goals daily, with regular 1-on-1 discussions with your Manager?
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#184Off topic completely but I really like the font used in this blog
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#185“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.
HR people have been speaking that way long before LLMs. Did you already update and align your OKR’s? Is your career accelerating from 360 degree peer review, continuous improvement, competency management, and excellence in execution? Do you review your goals daily, with regular 1-on-1 discussions with your Manager?
“360 degree peer review” isn’t a thing, the whole idea is that a 360 includes feedback from both your manager and your peers, that’s what distinguishes it from a 180!
:)
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#186“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.
Am I the only one who picks this as LLM output too?
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Karpathy made a point recently that the random Common Crawl sample is complete junk, and that something like an WSJ article is extremely rare in it, and it's a miracle the models can learn anything at all.
From the current WSJ front page: Paul Ingrassia's 'Nazi Streak' Musk Tosses Barbs at NASA Chie After SpaceX Criticism Travis Kelce Teams Up With Investor for Activist Campaign at Six Flags A Small North Carolina College Becomes a Magnet for Wealthy Students Cracker Barrel CEO Explains Short-Lived Logo Change If that's the benchmark for high quality training material we're in trouble.
In general I find WSJ articles very well written. It's not their fault if much of today's news is about clowns.
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#188Earlier 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 think this article has already made the rounds here, but I still think about it. I love using em dashes! It really makes me sad that I need to avoid them now to sound human https://bassi.li/articles/i-miss-using-em-dashes
Me too.
Sad that they went from being something used with nuance by people who care, maybe too much, to being the punctuation smell of the people who may care too little.
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#189Earlier 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.
Am I the only one who picks this as LLM output too?
The poster is using the LLMisms they're calling out in the process of calling them out, for the purpose of irony.
Re: LLMs can get "brain rot"
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brilliantly phrased — sharp, concise, and perfectly captures that uncanny "AI-polished" cadence everyone recognizes but can’t quite name. The tone strikes just the right balance between wit and warning.
One thing I don't understand, there was (appropriately) a news cycle about sycophancy in responses. Which was real, and happening to an excessive degree. It was claimed to be nerfed, but it seems strong as ever in GPT5, and it ignores my custom instructions to pare it back.
Sycophancy was actually buffed again a week after GPT-5 released. It was rather ham-fisted, as it will now obsessively reply with "Good question!" as though it will get the hose again if it does not.
"August 15, 2025 GPT-5 Updates We’re making GPT-5’s default personality warmer and more familiar. This is in response to user feedback that the initial version of GPT-5 came across as too reserved and professional. The differences in personality should feel subtle but create a noticeably more approachable ChatGPT experience.
Warmth here means small acknowledgements that make interactions feel more personable — for example, “Good question,” “Great start,” or briefly recognizing the user’s circumstances when relevant."
The "post-mortem" article on sycophancy in GPT-4 models revealed that the reason it occurred was because users, on aggregate, strongly prefer sycophantic responses and they operated based on that feedback. Given GPT-5 was met with a less-than-enthusiastic reception, I suppose they determined they needed to return to appealing to the lowest common denominator, even if doing so is cringe.