5 ms·
This is one of the few articles where I noticed a bunch of LLM-isms and still read to the end because it was interesting.
by yayitswei 7mo ago
This is one of the few articles where I noticed a bunch of LLM-isms and still read to the end because it was interesting.
- post-it 7mo agoIt's because there's clearly a near-1:1 ratio of input to output. I also noticed some LLMisms, and I suspect the author may have ran the text (perhaps in the form of a large number of bullet points) through an LLM. But because he's using the LLM to clean instead of multiply, it's still worth reading.
- 0x1ch 7mo agoProbably similar to what I do with my papers and resumes, I write them myself then throw them through LLMs for suggestions and corrections, manually reviewing the output.
- nerdsniper 7mo agoLLM-isms are tolerably bad. LLM's narrative ability is intolerably terrible. As others said, because a human actually wrote the overall narration for this, it was still compelling to read. The mistake would be skipping a well-narrated and thoughtful article just because of a few bad LLMisms. I think LLM's lack of "theory of mind" leads to them severely underperforming on narration and humor.
- ForOldHack 7mo agoAhh... Someone well read who has taste. Thanks.
- evilos 7mo ago[flagged]
- gchamonlive 7mo agoI feel for you, because moving forward more and more interesting and substantious articles will be written with llm-isms, either because LLM was used directly in writing or because the authors absorbed the style.
- rjh29 7mo agoThe way this article was written, is the standard way these kind of US pop science articles have always been written. It's LLM that absorbed that, not the opposite.
- gchamonlive 7mo agoGood thing I said moving forward
- rjh29 7mo agoIronic because IEEE Spectrum has an anti-LLM policy. So your complex about LLM writing styles has indirectly caused you to stop supporting genuine prose. Seriously there's no LLM stuff in here. Only emdashed which were used in journalism decades before AI was even a thing.
- purplekohav 7mo agoHi! I work at IEEE Spectrum and there's no way an LLM wrote this. We have a pretty strict Generative AI use policy (bottom of this page https://spectrum.ieee.org/about https://spectrum.ieee.org/about). I'm guessing this is from writers using actual writing techniques that Gen AI stole from...
- consumer451 7mo agoI just wanted to relate a story. I was speaking with my 14 year old nephew via messaging last month. It was about a deep topic, synthetic consciousness. He wrote such an intelligent reply that I asked him: hey, was this from an LLM? He was insulted. I did research with his parents and found out that 90% no, he's just a very smart kid. Is there a name for this this mode of confusion yet?
- stewarts 7mo agoStrikes me as an opposite of the Uncanny Valley.
- consumer451 7mo agoIndeed. Along the same lines, the recent "humans parading as agents" on moltbook story made me think... what is the inverse of the goal of captcha? That's impossible practically, right?
- ForOldHack 7mo agoThe last person who said that to me we John Klinenburg, Cornell.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- exodust 7mo agoHe was insulted on two counts. Firstly doubting his intelligence. Secondly the insinuation of deception: "You aren't that smart, surely you cheated." The insulting didn't end there. You asked his parents! Even then you only landed at 90%, yet another insult because why can't he earn 100%? Ethical dilemmas on all sides!
- squeaky-clean 7mo agoI didn't see any LLM-isms. Emdashes I guess, but I expect those in actual articles, they're only fishy in social media comments.
- mkehrt 7mo agoIt doesn't read like an LLM to me. What are you seeing?
- ForOldHack 7mo agoLook for a tiny mistake, like someone who is a native speaker of another language would NOT make. Eustomer. What?