As someone who is aggressively pro AI, I've also noticed how awful everything is to read lately. It's always so hard to put my finger on the exact thing, but it's a mixture of everything sounding identical and everything being a rambling unconcise mess. I find I routinely start reading interesting posts and just .. stop part way, abandoning it. A site I read stories on has been flooded with AI generated content, all of it terrible, and it just makes me retreat to things created before 2023 as a way of filtering it all out.
I just can't seem to stay interested and read LLM text. It just seems to lack going somewhere, its information density is often really low and its full of odd isms that I don't find very interesting to read. I don't have a good radar for detecting the various LLM particular speech patterns but everytime I have an issue with an article there is always people talking about how its clearly AI written.<p>I find the same thing with written results out of AI "research", it is a slog to read through it and most of it can be skipped even if it can sometimes be useful its an unenjoyable read.
I can imagine that one of the aspects of being social creatures is that we are drawn to the entropy/surprise factor of natural language produced by a brain that isn't our own. Deriving a shared understanding without being able to precisely model the language output of someone else is like, the fundamental substance of conversation.<p>Maybe that's the key ingredient that's missing from LLM-generated text. Even when there is actual content there, there's this lack of surprise / uncertainty in its delivery that we require to stay engaged. We may not know <i>what</i> will be communicated, but knowing exactly <i>how</i> it will be communicated just kills our innate interest.
I know what you mean. The latest models are _better_, but there's still something off about the prose they generate. Obvious tells are mostly gone now, but some internal spider-sense still makes me narrow my eyes.
Any linguists here? I feel there must be some clear linguistic explanation for defining exactly what LLM voice is, like sentence structures etc?
> As more people delegate writing to LLMs they will also delegate thinking and comprehension to LLMs. I don't want to do that, where's the fun of writing then?<p>I enjoy cooking from scratch, and I really don't like frozen foods, microwave/TV dinners, or even DoorDashing<p>but we're past complaining/arguing/shaming folks who don't cook every meal from scratch<p>you know what, I don't prefer eating it, but if my next door neighbor loves microwaving frozen $3 burritos, then go ahead<p>to some people, food is art, creativity, life
to others, food is fuel<p>also applies to writing and thinking
Analogy: it’s fine to write stories for yourself mad libs style with AI<p>It’s not ok to write stories with AI and post them for others to read claiming “I did that”<p>Get the difference?
Something like 90% of food in all US restaurants is from Sysco, US Foods, or similar.<p>Some of them purchase ingredients from those companies, and then make the food using those ingredients.<p>A great deal of restaurants, though, simply purchase pre-made frozen foods from those distributors, re-heat, and sell it to you at a premium without disclosing while you think it was freshly made. Mac & cheese, stuffed peppers, lasagna, burritos, most 'bar snacks' you can think of, etc.
Yes, I like the phrase "you can't expect someone to put the time and effort in to read/etc what you didn't put the time or effort in to write/etc".
Largely speaking eating is an activity that only involves yourself. Whereas, writing and thinking are largely activities to communicate ideas between yourself and others. Basically it matters more how this is done.
I think the idea is if you are going to share LLM writing then why not just share the prompt which is shorter and has the message you want to convey anyway.<p>That is not to say that I don't think there is a place for LLM assisted writing. Writing is an exercise for the author and translates to oral argumentation so I don't think that fades away. But LLMs could do some "audience normalization". What if I could make a blogpost that is dynamic based on experience of the reader? There are lots of opportunities, but versus other fields where optimizing for laziness can be beneficial I don't think lazy writing currently has much value add.
This analogy looks quite good. Heavily processed food is not heathy for your body and heavy use of AI and other dopamine shortcuts like social media are not healthy for your brain. You have to approach both with causion.
But isn't one problem here that it's not just personal consumption? People bemoan the proliferation of food-service (Sysco et al) "slop" at restaurants. It seems like LLM writing for others is serving that $3 burrito for $15 without even trying to doctor it up. If you're not willing to put in the effort to think about and produce your writing it's probably best to keep it for personal consumption.
There’s also an entire cohort who didn’t have the time to write that now do. They have some incredible, unrelated skill and can’t afford to hire a writer but need some writing done.<p>When I come across their slop I need to remind myself to let it go, else I’ll miss out enjoying the food from that Abuela who’s been cooking longer than I’ve been alive
Even more importantly: it's not an either/or situation.<p>You can love to cook and enjoy every second of it, but sometimes you just need fuel and that $3 microwave burrito is sufficient. Just the same, 99% of your means could be frozen TV dinners, but that doesn't mean cooking a romantic meal for Valentine's Day is off the table.<p>There's a weird level of fear mongering occurring around AI that it <i>will</i> make you incapable of independent thought if you use it. People will throw around very light research that kind of points in that direction, but they'll never highlight any of the nuances in such an argument. You can use AI and still "think" if you choose to, just like how you can avoid AI and still opt out of "thinking" if you choose to. It has less to do with AI and more to do with the context of the individual using AI.
> to some people, food is art, creativity, life to others, food is fuel<p>right. he is talking about the first group. where did you get the 'shame' part?<p>I like your analogy. Microwaved empty calories perfectly describes llm output. You are going to pay the price sooner or later.
Probably he should have actually said "what's the <i>point</i> of writing then?", because there isn't one. Just like food <i>is</i> fuel, writing <i>is</i> thinking.
[dead]
I'll repost a comment I made a while back describing the process I use, which I think balances AI in keeping your voice.<p>If you care about your voice, don't let LLMs write your words. But that doesn't mean you can't use AI to think, critique and draft lots of words for you. It depends on what purpose you're writing it for. If you're writing an impersonal document, like a design document, briefing, etc then who cares. In many cases (scientific papers, legal documents) you already have to write them in a voice that is not your own. Go ahead and write these in AI. But if you're trying to say something more personal then the words should be your own, AI will always try to 'smooth' out your voice, and if you care about it, you gotta write it yourself.<p>Now, how do you use AI effectively and still retain your voice? Here's one technique that works well: start with a voice memo, just record yourself maybe during a walk, and talk about a subject you want, free form, skip around jump sentences, just get it all out of your brain. Then open up a chat, add the recording or transcript, clearly state your intent in one sentence and ask the AI to consider your thoughts, your intent and ask clarifying questions. Like, what does the AI not understand about how your thoughts support the clearly stated intent of what you want to say. That'll produce a first draft, which will be bad. Then tell the AI all the things that don't make sense to you, that you don't like, just comment on the whole doc, get a second draft. Ask the AI if it has more questions for you, you can use live chat to make this conversation go smoother as well, when the AI is asking you questions, you can talk freely by voice. Repeat this one or two more times, and a much finer draft will take shape that is closer to what you want to say. During this drafting state, the AI will always try to smooth or average out your ideas, so it is important to keep pointing out all the ways in which it is wrong.<p>This process will help you with all the thinking involved being more up-front. Once you're read and critiqued several drafts, all your ideas will be much more clear. Then, sit down and write your own words from scratch, they will come much easier after all your thoughts have been exercised during the drafting process.
It’s also just… disrespectful to the human reader. Quite plainly.
I’ve started embracing my grammar flaws and typos. Emails and chats may get a proof, but only from me or another human, then I send it. I’ve deleted Grammarly because I think the flaws make the comms more authentic in the age of AI.<p>And of course I’ve dropped my use of the em-dash after being accused of being AI myself.
Couldn't agree more with the post.<p>I wrote down a few of my thoughts a few weeks ago at <a href="https://notes.pault.ag/why-write/" rel="nofollow">https://notes.pault.ag/why-write/</a> -- I find myself scanning text to see if it's LLM before I actually engage with the content.<p>It is getting harder to do by the day, and has slowly moved from a mental exercise (look for specific markers) into a "gut feel" based on how the pieces fit together.
Just do what I do: capture everything I've ever written and ask AI to cobble together what I said using my own sentences.<p>No more LLM voice! Every now and then you might get a nonsensical artifact or two, but that's the price you pay for better groceries.
I recently read DDIA for the first time, and I was surprised by how enjoyable it was after reading AI slop for a year.
> I'm wary of them, partly due skeptism about their accuracy, but also because it rather misses the point.<p>Here this reader wonders whether "to" was omitted intentionally to make a point? :-)<p>> But I also would prefer rather a genuine human's clunky prose to the smooth but soulless LLM.<p>Amen. This reminds me of a bit from <i>Kitchen Confidential</i> about how Anthony Bourdain would prefer a simple and plain home cooked meal over an ornate restaurant meal any day of the week. I read because I want to hear what a human has to say. It's the errors and malapropisms and style that give a unique and human voice.
There's a fine line between using an llm to write a personal blog vs using it to help you come up with an account plan on why you want to sell to a company that will be used internally.
i noticed something similar yet different. because, sadly, most of what i read today is llm output (the chain of thoughts, or the summary at the end of a big chunk or work), i tend to "adopt" this style in my writing, hence, writing as an llm without using one. humans are an amazing creatures at copying stuff and adapting to our environment
personally, i'm for LLM and AI usage in writing if it helps the writer communicate ideas, their stories, and triumphs in ways they may never have been able to before. I just had one of my posts removed from the front page here which was disheartening because it feels as though what was judged was prose rather than the technical insight in to a niche problem, which seems counterintuitive considering i've always thought of Hacker News being an inclusive place for the technical and engineering skills rather than their level of the english language.
> I just had one of my posts removed from the front page here which was disheartening because it feels as though what was judged was prose rather than the technical insight in to a niche problem, which seems counterintuitive considering i've always thought of Hacker News being an inclusive place for the technical and engineering skills rather than their level of the english language.<p>The problem with LLM voice is that it sends the signal that it's a likely waste of effort to try to figure out if there's any "technical insight" there, because more often than not, <i>there isn't</i>.<p>Maybe it's not fair that you're paying the price for others using LLMs to abuse their readers, but it's the reality that you have to deal with. It's also not fair to expect readers to wade through all that abusive LLM prose in order to find your (assumed) non-abusive post.<p>Once LLM writing becomes indistinguishable from human writing, it will be really sad. There will just be a collapse of human engagement, and you might as well just talk to your machine because then at least you know what you're getting and aren't being deceived.
in some ways I agree, however I think that speaks more about the reader themselves. Just like when communicating with someone who's first language isn't english, I don't disregard the meaning and intent behind their words simply because the way they communicate isn't formally correct. Regarding my post that was removed, it was lovely to see the comments of people that had enjoyed the technical write up. Me personally, i'll always value an attempt at engaging and communicating than none at all.
Imagine you cooked something great, a deliciously tender cake or something. I ask you if I can try some, you say sure, cut off a little piece for me, then you drop it and tell I can have it on the floor. <i>That</i> is what AI is doing for writing. Why should I care how the cake would taste, if I don't like eating on the floor?
i don't really agree with that view, but i respect your opinion. In my view, i see it more like someone who's never baked a cake before, offering you a slice, and whether or not it's good may be up to you to decide.
This is an interesting corollary to a thing I'm seeing where "devs who thought their job was writing code" are in like existential danger.<p>Technical skills aren't worth shit and never were, except as far as they enable you to engage with other people in ways you and they find valuable. This used to be really far! It made it easy to believe that the technical skills on their own were what was valuable.<p>But the engagement was always the valuable thing, generating technical insight was a necessary prerequisite for it. Now anyone with a $20 claude sub can generate technical insight into niche problems, so what's left is everything else. Everything of value.
I find a lot of LLM writing exhausting to read. It is like I have to exert extra energy to attenuate my BS detector to cut through what is actually being said, and why.
Assuming the author had to input good points for the LLM to expand it into a full length post, just give me the points. Give both formats if one must. Translate, spellcheck, fix mistakes with an LLM. Don’t inflate 3 bullet points to a 10 minute read.<p>I can’t distinguish between well meaning slop and blogspam slop. I might be able to if I’m well informed on the topic and can point out inaccuracies. Otherwise I just don’t know what is accurate and what is filler or outright wrong. LLM-isms are very distracting and exhausting to sort through. It just doesn’t make for a good reading experience.
One reason it grates is that it is our brain's way of telling us that there is nothing to be gained from engaging the material; it is trite.
> In time it may be that LLMs will be so good that we can't tell the difference.<p>I have to believe that we are within a couple of years if not months of this. This problem is too well-known to not be a major focus of the frontier labs' efforts.
My own feeling is that this signal will perhaps never fully go away. Not in months; most likely not in a couple of years.<p>Not least because it’s getting worse rather than better. But also because as AI gets better at writing like humans, humans will change how they communicate to avoid being confused with it.<p>Which will get a lot easier once human writing is nearly extinct. Now <i>that</i> could happen in two years.
Yeah, I swear AI writing is worse than it was. Part of my big model release tests has always been asking it to write a few chapters in different styles, and I swear they have slowly gone from really bad, to boring and plain (I remember Gemini 3 being peak of this), to now over-complicated and quite bad. My guess is that they were initially being trained on writing quality but that has taken a backseat since it's not really a profit generator.
I think the signals also show up in different ways to different people.<p>For example, I don't dislike the way Gemma 4 writes, so much.<p>But I am British and Deepmind's output somehow seems more compatible with the way British people read (it's a very multinational team, I suspect that is an influence).<p>Other people pick up on Gemma's AI writing tells (which are there) a little more readily than I do.
> But if I want to communicate with humans, my humanity has to shine (or at least ooze) out of my prose.<p>Yeah. I want to be able to touch a human being (or at least have one touch me) through the words. LLMs poison that, even if a human prompted the LLM.<p>Translation... I think I object to translation less than Martin does. There's a human back there, and they're writing all the words, and then an LLM is translating them. The LLM may not translate them perfectly, but they aren't going to introduce "load-bearing" when it wasn't there.<p>The bit about using LLM when you're writing for a bureaucratic process rather than a human was interesting, at least to me. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but I think it makes sense.
[dead]