31–40 of 86 posts
It's the bitter-lesson to feature-engineering lifecycle. When a technique or technology is new people are making massive gains by just applying it to some use case, or gathering more data for training, or giving it more resources. As time goes on those "bitter lesson" gains start to hit the shallow part of the logistic curve and companies have to start investing more and more effort into engineering for each small, i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like em-dashes, some people have always done these though. Why are they penalized with immediate AI slop witch hunts? The LLMs didn't come up with these tics out of thin air.
You have to start with the reason there’s a witch hunt. I love reading. I read books (novels) almost every day and I’m almost always perusing a textbook pr an article for my jobs and my hobbies. The signal/noise for entertainment or information was fairly high, then come LLM tools. You start to be interested by the title of an article or a book cover, and then you start reading it and it’s just vapor. Nothing tangibl…
I like your vapor term. For me it's about the content anyways. If it's just some sort of vapid, pointless drivel then I'm not going to like it regardless of who or what wrote it. And in my experience text that strongly correlates with AI tells also strongly correlate with having sparse substance and lots of fluff.
In other words, if people don't like something, just don't read it. Shouting at people for AI generated text just makes you look foolish if the text is not in fact AI generated. And the person shouting "AI slop!" has no way to prove it other than vibes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That reply was AI written.
Lol, no. I've always sounded like that, and there are decades of my writing online. Also, FWIW, Pangram scores my writing as entirely human. Claude's writing isn't easy to identify because it uses em-dashes and bulleted lists. Claude's distinctive style goes much deeper than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s written by AI.
I am _very_ familiar with Claudish, and to some extent, the other AIs' writing styles. This article is human-written and features human writing quirks. The very first sentence > Back in 2022 and 2023 there were two big branches of machine learning happening at Meta. is unmistakably human. That's not how a LLM would phrase this sentence, and if it did, it would have put a comma after 2023.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[[citation needed]] I am a professional writer and have been for over 30 years. (I do not use any form of LLM ever.) This means I read a lot . This also means that I have 30+ years of experience of readers not understanding what I wrote, or not getting further than the title, or not getting the main message, or inverting it in their heads, or inserting their own message and then complaining when I diverge, and an end…
I don’t think TFA is written by AI. But AI written pieces do have a certain feeling. A sort of saccatto in the succession of ideas that does not feel natural. They emphasize certain points, and you as a reader, you just wonder why is that. There is the “This thing, not just that thing”. There are also the three successive propositions (mostly in one sentences) to accentuate an idea and “Negation. Strong positive idea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think TFA is written by AI. But AI written pieces do have a certain feeling. A sort of saccatto in the succession of ideas that does not feel natural. They emphasize certain points, and you as a reader, you just wonder why is that. There is the “This thing, not just that thing”. There are also the three successive propositions (mostly in one sentences) to accentuate an idea and “Negation. Strong positive idea…
Just like em-dashes, some people have always done these though. Why are they penalized with immediate AI slop witch hunts? The LLMs didn't come up with these tics out of thin air.
It's the bitter-lesson to feature-engineering lifecycle. When a technique or technology is new people are making massive gains by just applying it to some use case, or gathering more data for training, or giving it more resources. As time goes on those "bitter lesson" gains start to hit the shallow part of the logistic curve and companies have to start investing more and more effort into engineering for each small, i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude's writing style is at least as distinctive as any human's personal style. It has a long list of favorite words, verbal tics and common structures. On top of that, LLM writing is often bad in a very particular way: it's weak on actual things to say, but with an overheated style. Some days, I spend over 4 hours a day reading walls of text written by Claude. If I couldn't recognize Claude's default "voice" by now…
Claude's default voice, yes. But I'd assume a lot of people have learned to prompt it to something other than its default style. IMO it is good practice to have a style guide to feed in with the prompt. > On top of that, LLM writing is often bad in a very particular way: it's weak on actual things to say, but with an overheated style. This point is interesting because it raises the question of what "LLM writing" actu…
To an extent, true. There are a lot of lazy ones though. And even for those who take steps, it sometimes leaves enough of a trace to at least raise the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s written by AI.
I am _very_ familiar with Claudish, and to some extent, the other AIs' writing styles. This article is human-written and features human writing quirks. The very first sentence > Back in 2022 and 2023 there were two big branches of machine learning happening at Meta. is unmistakably human. That's not how a LLM would phrase this sentence, and if it did, it would have put a comma after 2023.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like em-dashes, some people have always done these though. Why are they penalized with immediate AI slop witch hunts? The LLMs didn't come up with these tics out of thin air.
I've realized that even when humans write that way, I also stop reading. Manipulative writing always shuts down my interest in reading it. At least when the LLM does it, it's a byproduct of training. When a human does it's intentional.