311–313 of 313 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I do – and I know this isn't conventional style – is use ex dashes. (Or, you could use spaces between em dashes, as incorrect as it is.)
I've noticed that LLMs generated text often has spaces around em dashes, which I found odd. They don't always do that, but they do it often enough that it stood out to me since that isn't what you'd normally see.
I am 100% right there with you. Writing in my voice is maybe the last thing I have that I can do differently and 'better' than an LLM in a couple years time, or even right now if I'm really being honest. I haven't even really tried to use LLMs to write anything from a work context because of the ideas you talk about here.
Writing to express yourself sure. Using an llm for a birthday card would be a terrible sin. However if someone used it for, I dunno, drafting an email because you’re in a dispute with an evil real estate agent and you’re trying not to get screwed, I wouldn’t have any qualms about it. IMO it’s lazy and bad for expressive writing, but for certain things it’s totally fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do you. I do think there's a great deal wrong with that, and I won't read it at all. Human can speak unto human unless there's language barrier. I am not interested in anyone's mechanically-recovered verbiage, no matter how much they massaged it.
Makes me wonder how I would react to Star Trek's universal translator today. Feels like even if there is a language barrier, I would prefer to but in the effort to break it down rather than have a magical solution that may or may not get things across correctly.
What many people don't seem to realise, though, is that there's a vast yawning difference between "take this text and translate it from language A to language B" and "take this text and summarise it" -- which bots that can't even count simply cannot do. If a model can't count, it can't work out which subjects come up more or less frequently, for instance, and therefore which are more important.
If it were two humans speaking through a communicator in real time, you can work out what the bot is saying and get around its foibles.
I have personal experience of this. Way back in about 2008 or so, there was a bot known as the Salmon:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081220145156/https://en.wikipe...
It called itself (adjective-beginning-with-S)(Salmon), such as @SuspiciousSalmon.
It scanned Livejournal and looked for profiles with AOL AIM addresses. If 2 accounts posted LJ updates more or less simultaneously, it knew you were both online and messaged you both, typically with an extremely sexual message, and then left you to talk. The snag was, the bot gave you both the same fake name, and any attempt to give your real name or LJ or AOL screenname was replaced with the bot alias.
It got me and a random woman in Baltimore and it took us concerted effort to find out who each other really were. The fun bit is that we're still in touch and occasionally chat or exchange emails.
With human thought, in real time you can bypass limitations introduced by a bot. Do it to static text, including program code, and you can't.