This is the first time I've seen people accuse AI text of being "too structured and consistent" compared to human text. Usually it's about specific patterns or tons of repetition or outright mistakes.
replyOne example of being "too structured" is that LLMs love an explicit introduction and conclusion even when one that isn't really warranted. It's always telling you what it's going to say, and what it just said.
replyPatterns = consistent?
replyPatterns like heavy use of certain words or dashes or bullet points don't change how consistent the overall post is.
replyAI was trained on human writing.
reply> AI was trained on human writing.
replyAI output is not varied like real human writing. This is a very distinctive narrowing of style.
And now humans are trained on AI writing.
replyLike what happens to YouTube videos that go through the compression algorithm 20 times.
> guess humans will eventually also start writing more like the AIs they learn from.
replyWith the AI feedback loop being so fast and tight for some tasks, the focus moves on to delivery than learning. There is no incentive, space or time for learning.
For me personally, both at work and in my free time, I spend _more_ time on writing things _that matter_ since I’ve freed up time by using LLM’s for boilerplate tasks.
replyMy motto is - If it wasn’t worth writing, it won’t be worth reading.
A good example of writing where I’d recommend using LLM’s is product documentation. You pass the diff, the description of the task, and the context (existing documentation) with a prompt ”Update the documentation…”.
Documentation is important but it’s not prose. However, writing a comment on hacker news is.
Won't be well received here, but this is the truth.
reply