> Full stop.
Why people don't edit out obvious sloppification and expect to still have readers left
Why people don't edit out obvious sloppification and expect to still have readers left
I hear this sort of thing all the time now on YouTube from media/news personalities:
“And that’s the part nobody seems to be talking about.”
"And here's what keeps me up at night."
“This is where the story gets complicated.”
“Here’s the piece that doesn’t quite fit.”
“And this is where the usual explanation starts to break down.”
“Here’s what I can’t stop thinking about.”
“The part that should worry us is not the obvious one.”
“And that’s where the real problem begins.”
“But the more interesting question is the one no one is asking.”
“And this is where things stop being simple.”
It doesn't really worry me but I think its interesting that LLM speak sounds so distinctive, and how willing these media personalities are to be so obvious in reading out on TV what the LLM spat out.
I've never studied what LLMs say in depth is it is interesting that my brain recognises the speech pattern so easily.
This is to say: Marketers and spammers repeat the same things over and over, and these models are build on coalescing repetition into the basis.
So yeah, of course people talked like this before, but it was always in some known context like linked in or a spam website.
A writing teacher once excoriated me for saying that something was important. “Don’t tell me it’s important, show me, and let me decide, and if you do your job I’ll agree”
I don’t know how a completion can tell when it needs to do this. Mostly so far it doesn’t seem capable
BuzzFeed and Upworthy etc pioneered this for web 'news stories', then it got used in linkedin, twitter, and everywhere where views are more important than the content.
It's also exactly the Mr beast playbook, and got him to the largest channel on YouTube.
Any system attempting to capture human attention will use these techniques, nothing LLM-specific here at all.
No point creating busywork for yourself just shuffling words around when the information is there, no?
I guess it depends on what you want out of the article. Substance, or style?
I'd they aren't self-aware enough or smart enough to determine that what they wrote is indistinguishable from text generation, how probable is it that they have something of value to add to any thought?
Corporate announcements were never the places that literature and art were pushing the envelope. They were slop before, and they're slop now.