7 ms·

The bigger problem is its effect on the way we use language. The amount of LLM generated or edited media is going to keep increasing and the media that people c

The bigger problem is its effect on the way we use language. The amount of LLM generated or edited media is going to keep increasing and the media that people consume affects their own word choice.

KaiserPro 1mo ago
> affects their own word choice. exactly. in the same way that printed books affected word choice, so did the radio.
- Y-bar 1mo ago
  I can't remember any radio determining words or adjusting grammar of the person speaking through it. Neither can I recall there has ever been a moveable type press, laser printer, or inkjet which bastardised the words of authors. These were mediums _through_ which communication happened. Language models, large or small, are not any such medium.
  - KaiserPro 1mo ago
    > Neither can I recall there has ever been a moveable type press, Ah my friend, you are about to fall down a rabbit hole into standardisation of spelling, and the sometimes deadly debates about how to translate latin into the vernacular. English, as she is written, is a great example. for the spoken word, BBC/received pronunciation is another. I speak the way I do _because_ of BBC radio. The reason I have the accent I do is because I changed it to fit what the BBC put out, rather than what my local (impenetrable) dialect was. You have to remember that your language is shaped by those around you when you are young. So if you are in an insular community, it will be reflected in your language. If I was a journalist, or hell, just me, I wouldn't be letting an LLM speak for me. So the bastardisation of my voice is down to me, not the machine. but again, your argument is against LLMs and globalisation of culture, not finger printing.
    - pjc50 1mo ago
      There are two different things being talked about here, one of which is "what effect does widespread LLM use have on a culture", and one of which is "what is the effect on a specific text of running it through an LLM".
    - Y-bar 1mo ago
      A radio device at BBC did all this and not humans? > again, your argument is against LLMs and globalisation of culture, not finger printing. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Do not ever put words in my mouth. My argument is that radio is a medium through which humans communicate. An LLM is not.
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
      - KaiserPro 1mo ago
        I mean I get your point, but sadly LLMs are a tool by which humans communicate. In the same way that handwriting conveys more information about the writer than type, typing ones own thoughts conveys more information about the writer than prompting an LLM. The analogy here is hiring a speech writer to do your speeches, or dictating to a skilled typist. I understand the vociferousness in push back
      - psjs 1mo ago
        [1] > A radio device at BBC did all this and not humans? Technology mediates (human) agency. [2] > My argument is that radio is a medium through which humans communicate. An LLM is not. KaiserPro's argument is that radio (a one-way medium) mediates how humans communicate (phonetically), thus influencing how people speak. Now that does not explain how the printing press and radio have influenced word choice (both of which I would like to see examples of!) [3] > I can't remember any radio determining words or adjusting grammar of the person speaking through it. Now media themselves did not really have something that looked like the kind of pseudo-agency that LLMs seemingly have. There may be some kind of qualitative leap.
    - throwthrowuknow 29d ago

The bigger problem is its effect on the way we use language. The amount of LLM generated or edited media is going to keep increasing and the media that people consume affects their own word choice.

KaiserPro 1mo ago

> affects their own word choice. exactly. in the same way that printed books affected word choice, so did the radio.

Y-bar 1mo ago
I can't remember any radio determining words or adjusting grammar of the person speaking through it. Neither can I recall there has ever been a moveable type press, laser printer, or inkjet which bastardised the words of authors. These were mediums _through_ which communication happened. Language models, large or small, are not any such medium.
- KaiserPro 1mo ago
  > Neither can I recall there has ever been a moveable type press, Ah my friend, you are about to fall down a rabbit hole into standardisation of spelling, and the sometimes deadly debates about how to translate latin into the vernacular. English, as she is written, is a great example. for the spoken word, BBC/received pronunciation is another. I speak the way I do _because_ of BBC radio. The reason I have the accent I do is because I changed it to fit what the BBC put out, rather than what my local (impenetrable) dialect was. You have to remember that your language is shaped by those around you when you are young. So if you are in an insular community, it will be reflected in your language. If I was a journalist, or hell, just me, I wouldn't be letting an LLM speak for me. So the bastardisation of my voice is down to me, not the machine. but again, your argument is against LLMs and globalisation of culture, not finger printing.
  - pjc50 1mo ago
    There are two different things being talked about here, one of which is "what effect does widespread LLM use have on a culture", and one of which is "what is the effect on a specific text of running it through an LLM".
  - Y-bar 1mo ago
    A radio device at BBC did all this and not humans? > again, your argument is against LLMs and globalisation of culture, not finger printing. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Do not ever put words in my mouth. My argument is that radio is a medium through which humans communicate. An LLM is not.
    - deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    - KaiserPro 1mo ago
      I mean I get your point, but sadly LLMs are a tool by which humans communicate. In the same way that handwriting conveys more information about the writer than type, typing ones own thoughts conveys more information about the writer than prompting an LLM. The analogy here is hiring a speech writer to do your speeches, or dictating to a skilled typist. I understand the vociferousness in push back
    - psjs 1mo ago
      [1] > A radio device at BBC did all this and not humans? Technology mediates (human) agency. [2] > My argument is that radio is a medium through which humans communicate. An LLM is not. KaiserPro's argument is that radio (a one-way medium) mediates how humans communicate (phonetically), thus influencing how people speak. Now that does not explain how the printing press and radio have influenced word choice (both of which I would like to see examples of!) [3] > I can't remember any radio determining words or adjusting grammar of the person speaking through it. Now media themselves did not really have something that looked like the kind of pseudo-agency that LLMs seemingly have. There may be some kind of qualitative leap.
  - throwthrowuknow 29d ago