> it's not just a website you go to like Google, it's a little spirit/ghost that "lives" on your computer
> it's not just about the image generation itself, it's about the joint capability coming from text generation
There would be no reaction from me on this 3 years ago, but now this sentence structure is ruined for me
But I had to change how I write because people started calling my writing “AI generated”
Jk jk, now that you pointed it out I can’t unsee it.
We're embarking on a ginormous planetary experiment here.
Many of the speeches given by MPs are likely to have been written beforehand, in whole or in part. Wouldn’t the more likely explanation be that they, or their staff, are using LLMs to write their speeches?
> it's not just a website you go like Google, it's a little spirit/ghost that "lives" on your computer
This type of sentence, I call rhetorical fat. Get rid of this fat and you obtain a boring sentence that repeats what has been said in the previous one.
Not all rhetorical fats are equal, and I must admit I find myself eyerolling on the "little spirit" part more than about the fatness.
I understand the author wants to decorate things and emphasize key elements, and the hate I feel is only caused by the incompatible projection of my ideals to a text that doesn't belong to me.
> it's not just about the image generation itself, it's about the joint capability coming from text generation.
That's unjustified conceptual stress.
That could be a legitimate answer to a question ("No, no, it's not just about that, it's more about this"), but it's a text. Maybe the text wants you to be focused, maybe the text wants to hype you; this is the shape of the hype without the hype.
"I find image generation is cooler when paired with text generation."
You might find this statement non-informative, but without two parts there's no comparison. That's really the semantics of the statement which Karpathy is trying to express.
ChatGPT-ish "it's not just" is annoying because the first part is usually a strawman, something reader considers trite. But it's not the case here.
You're right ! The strawman theory is based.
But I think there's more to it, I find dislikable the structure of these sentences (which I find a bit sensationnalist for nothing, I don't know, maybe I am still grumpy).
So it might be just a natural reaction to over-use of a particular pattern. This kind of stuff have been driving language evolution for millennia. Besides that, pompous style is often used in 'copy' (slogans and ads) which is something most people don't like.
After all,l he's been a "influencer" for a long time, starting from the "software 2.0" essay.
Joking aside, as a nonnative English speaker who spent quite a bit of time to learn to write in English "properly", this trend of needing to write baad Engrish to avoid being called out in public for "written by an LLM" is frustrating...
I realized that's what bothered me. It's not "oh my god, they used ChatGPT." But "oh my god, they couldn't even be bothered to use Claude."
It'll still sound like AI, but 90% of the cringe is gone.
If you're going to use AI for writing, it's just basic decency to use the one that isn't going to make your audience fly into a fit of rage every ten seconds.
That being said, I feel very self conscious using emdashes in current decade ;)
I mostly use them in Telegram because it auto converts -- into emdash. They are a pain to type everywhere else though!