Only mentioning because your "actually" may imply you thought you were disagreeing, when in fact it's one big happy family!
Or do you mean that the patterns that AI is showing today were already present in communication around that time?
That seems obvious as well, as AI has a lot of repetitive patterns that come from all kinds of periods, of which “load-bearing” is just one.
But the LLMs really seem to fixate on using the same ones in the same places all the time. I guess that's because that's the highest probability construction.
Most of us are only dealing with a handful of hyper-productive LLMs, so it makes sense that the LLM-ticks get old much quicker.
[0]: https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/05/em-dashes-why-write...
The LLMs haven't invented anything. Every LLM-ism is some pre-existing and established word, metaphor, and or stylistic element mechanically overused until it becomes an instant cliche.
The other LLM-ism is vapid bullshit: meaningless crap that's kind of like those old hollywood facades: it appears to be a substantial building, but if you look a bit closer it's just a single wall propped up (https://www.ferrovial.com/blog/en/2018/03/the-fake-architect...).
as I see them they are all truly terrible even if authored by humans
anyway, the other way is I found it's helpful when prompting LLMs to use the same "it's not delivery, it's DiGiorno's" pattern that they're all so obsessed with. especially when the thing's misapprehended some concept, so you need to clarify. this hasn't yet generalized from the fake "conversations" I have with chatbots into my conversational style out in the real world, but the risk is fully there. (it's not an inevitability -- it's an occupational hazard.)
1. Dying laughing at “ it's not delivery, it's DiGiorno's"
2. They do it because it’s succinct, and unambiguous.
If/when AGI arrives I assume this tactic will stop working.
It used to be that the "you are not an I and you must not pretend to have experiences" training that produced the "As a Large Language model, I don't have experiences like humans do, but..." in replies I remember from the early days of LLM chatbots kept these to the minimum.
But one of the things I most frequently notice is that LLMs increasingly make those claims, about things that are very obviously out of their wheelhouse as far as even theoretical experiences, like pretending to have played a video game.
LLMs are tiring to read, but a self-entitled “[amateur] writer with very good English skills and expansive vocabulary”? Now that’s just exhausting.
EDIT: a long press on the dash key gives you the option of a long dash but I definitely didn’t do that. Or at least, have no conscious memory of doing that.
"it's a load bearing poster..."
I no longer put a lot of effort into ensuring documents feel right when writing them.
The problem is that the word "just" in the first sentence above does a lot of work. You want to get rid of even slightly LLM-adjacent phrases, just to be sure. And you have to do that pass always, for any writing that somebody else can read. It's less of a problem in larger texts, but the "de-LLM-ing tax" is pretty substantial on quick Slack messages. I think the time between typing the last dot and hitting Enter has easily doubled for me over the past 2 years. For now, most of the motivation is still just my care for the written word, but it is increasingly expected as a signal that I'm not letting an LLM write for me. I don't like where this is going, to say the least...
e.g. one pattern I had/have is
<scope problem> the good news is <solution by way of analogy> is aviliable. The <constraint/requirement> is loadbearing though, ...
a near automatic script I rattle off in discussions/consults. When you solve similar problems several times, you figure out what works for communicating things you stick with it and you recycle/polish.
problem is, when for whatever reason, that pattern ends up as part of the core statistical distribution a model uses. You could royally fuck ones life up if working for a "frontier" lab, by simply finding a person with an acceptable speech rythem and cloning it, making it synonymous with ai slop. you'd destroy that persons image every time they open their mouth without them realising it. I for one started randomly getting quite hostile reactions from software devs who would be exposed to more llm putput than others.
Imagine an AI lab steals your voice, and uses it to scam call folks all day. Now, every time you call anyone, you are met with an immediate hangup. you'd have to put on a fake voice just to get the call to stay connected.
I love ai, and what it promises excites me, but as usual, humanity has a way of taking a cool tool and fucking it up royally. maybe the solution is to simply pepper slurs into everything one writes to blacklist ones content from training.
One needn't imagine, because they're already stealing peoples' voices. e.g. the recent HN thread about a professional voice actor that keeps having to prove he's human.
I wonder how much other people have used it, for it to be present enough in the pirated data used for training such that Claude uses the words as often as people are seeing,
Or a musician, or a philosopher, or a biologist... :D
Such a limited life.
Fighting hard to catalogue
Sacrifice for the disguise
Disconnecting analogues
Anything to synthesize
Nothing here is what it seems
Nothing can be recognized
Perfect fit for the machine
Everyone is synthesized