Not liking a writing style because LLMs use it is not a good reason. What exactly do you dislike about it?
> While exploring this question, I discovered something unexpected that led to an interesting collaboration with Grant and a deeper understanding of vector space geometry.
> When I shared these findings with Grant, his response exemplified the collaborative spirit that makes the mathematics community so rewarding. He not only appreciated the technical correction but invited me to share these insights with the 3Blue1Brown audience. This article is that response, expanded to explore the broader implications of these geometric properties for machine learning and dimensionality reduction.
> The fascinating history of this result speaks to the interconnected nature of mathematical discovery.
> His work consistently inspires deeper exploration of mathematical concepts, and his openness to collaboration exemplifies the best aspects of the mathematical community. The opportunity to contribute to this discussion has been both an honor and a genuine pleasure.
I don't know how to express it, maybe it's because I'm not a native English speaker, but my brain has become used to this kind of tone in AI-generated content and I find it distracting to read. I don't mean to diminish this blog post, which is otherwise very interesting. I'm just pointing out an increasing (and understandable) trend of relying on AI to "improve" prose, but I think it sometimes leads to a uniformity of style, which I find a bit sad.
Reading LLM text feels a lot like watching a Dragon Ball Z filler episode.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing
I liked this bit, among others:
> LLMs overuse the 'rule of three'—"the good, the bad, and the ugly". This can take different forms from "adjective, adjective, adjective" to "short phrase, short phrase, and short phrase".[2]
> While the 'rule of three', used sparingly, is common in creative, argumentative, or promotional writing, it is less appropriate for purely informational texts, and LLMs often use this structure to make superficial analyses appear more comprehensive.
> Examples:
> "The Amaze Conference brings together global SEO professionals, marketing experts, and growth hackers to discuss the latest trends in digital marketing. The event features keynote sessions, panel discussions, and networking opportunities."
There's room for lyricism and artistry in poetry or other forms of writing meant to entertain or evoke particular feelings, but not in a thesis. A thesis should get to the point using the path of least action. It's the difference between calling something a "many-sided pseudopolygon with no vertices halfway in tint between blue and red" and calling something a "purple circle."
It is completely reasonable to read that signal, and completely reasonable to conclude that you shouldn't ask me to care more about your content than you did as the "creator".
Moreover, it suggests that your "content" may just be a prompt to an AI, and there is no great value to caching the output of an AI on the web, or asking me to read it. In six months I could take the same prompt and get something better.
Finally, if your article looks like it was generated by AI, AI is still frankly not really at the point where long form output of it on a technical concept is quite a safe thing to consume for deep understanding. It still makes a lot of little errors fairly pervasively, and significant errors not only still occur often, but when they do they tend to corrupt the entire rest of the output as the attention mechanism basically causes the AI to justify its errors with additional correct-sounding output. And if your article sounds like it was generated with AI, am I justified in assuming that you've prevented this from happening with your own expertise? Statistically, probably not.
Disliking the "default tone" of the AI may seem irrational but there are perfectly rational reasons to develop that distaste. I suppose we should be grateful that LLM's "default voice" has been developed into something that wasn't used by many humans prior to them staking a claim on it. I've heard a few people complain about getting tagged as AIs for using emdashes or bullet points prior to AIs, but it's not a terribly common complaint.