In point of fact, I had not.
After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".
In point of fact, I had not.
After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".
This has additional layers to it as well. For example, I actively avoid using em dash or anything that resembles it right now. If I had no exposure to the drama around AI, I wouldn't even be thinking about this. I am constraining my writing simply to avoid the implication.
I'm still using bullet lists sometimes, as they have their place, and I'm hoping LLMs don't totally nuke them.
You don't know whose style the LLM would pick for that particular prompt and project. You might end up with Carmack or maybe that buggy, test-failing piece of junk project on Github.
There's no "LLM style". There's "human style mimicked by LLMs". If they default to a specific style, then that's on the human user who chooses to go with it, or, likely, doesn't care. They could just as well make it output text in the style of Shakespeare or a pirate, eschew emojis and bulleted lists, etc.
If you're finding yourself influenced by LLMs—don't be. Here's why:
• It doesn't matter.
• Keep whatever style you had before LLMs.
:tada:
There is a "default LLM style", which is why I call it that. Or technically, one per LLM, but they seem to have converged pretty hard since they're all convergently evolving in the same environment.
It's trivial to prompt it out of that style. Word about how to do it and that you should do it has gotten around in the academic world where the incentives to not be caught are high. So I don't call it "the LLM style". But if you don't prompt for anything in particular, yes, there is a very very strong "default LLM style".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44072922
It's sad because people that are ok with AI art are still enjoying the human art just the same. Somehow their visceral hate of AI-art managed to ruin human art for themselves as well.
But instead we had a 'non-profit' called 'Open'AI that irresponsibly unleashed this technology on the world and lied about its capabilities with no care of how it would affect the average person.
AI outputs mimicking art rob audiences of the ability to appreciate art on its own in the wild without further markers of authenticity, which steals joy from a whole generation of digital artists that have grown up sharing their creativity with each other
If you lack the empathy to understand why AI art-like outputs are abhorrent, I hope someone wastes a significant portion of your near future with generated meaningless material presented to you as something that is valuable and was time consuming to make, and you gain nothing from it, so that you can understand the problem for yourself first hand.
HN discussed it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44384610
The responses were a surprisingly mixed bag. What I thought was a very common sense observation had some heavy detractors in those threads.