undefined

points

[-]

normal people talk and write with some notion of meter, the cadence of communicating where pauses are inserted at places that naturally suit the speaker (and listener) to pause for thought. LLM's don't really do that, they just write a bunch of sentences.

> Researchers have found that some neurons inside the FFN are strongly associated with specific concepts or facts. One neuron might activate strongly on Eiffel-Tower-related text. Another on programming languages. Another on past-tense verbs.

People don't really write like this and they don't really talk like this (and no, people don't necessarily write exactly how they talk because they don't read exactly how they listen; the written word can be backtracked while the heard cannot, and speakers/writers know this, either consciously or unconsciously). A person would probably structure this more like:

> Researchers have found that some neurons inside the FFN are strongly associated with specific concepts or facts. For example, there could be one neuron that activates strongly on Eiffel-Tower-related text, another that activates strongly on programming languages, a third neuron activating on past-tense verbs, and so on.

Usually people wouldn't write "Another on programming languages." as a standalone sentence like that because the periods introduce an unnatural pause like they're giving a TED talk, unless of course they were punctuating that way for effect, but you'd essentially never communicate with that effect full time.

by mattnewton13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don’t disagree with your conclusion that this is likely ai rewritten, but I do find it strange that you say “normal people don’t write like this” when it is mimicking how people write, and using patterns I have seen people write. I think models are at the point where style is not really reliable as an indicator anymore.

by Izkata11 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

A lot of the common patterns people ping as AI (like "it's not X, it's Y"*) are marketing-speak, of which there's a lot of on the internet. It's applying existing patterns in unusual locations, ignoring the original context.

The one they're pointing out (the short punchy sentences) also apply to things like politicians and news articles. Blog posts are a weird context.

* And here I mean those literal exact words. People are also extrapolating to similar patterns that use different or more words than "it's not" and "it's", but those flow better and aren't what I'm referring to here.

by AgentMatt13 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I'm sure there's plenty of writing in the above style to be found on the Internet, and hence having been trained on by the LLM. I'm also not a fan of this style, and in particular I'd say it's rarely or never found in scientific / technical writing meant to convey understanding rather than sell or hype. So here it's IMO more of a style mismatch.

by zemo7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It’s not a model of an author, it’s a model of documents. That’s not the same thing.

by wizzwizz442 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

No, but sufficiently-advanced overfitting would lead to to the model keeping track of an author stylistic profile, in the same way it keeps track of the plot of a story it's writing (i.e., badly, but well enough that you have to pay attention to notice that something is wrong).

by thin_carapace12 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

people sure do write like that, in novels. nobody writes scientific articles like novels, because scientific articles don't need to maximally capture audience attention. the purpose of a scientific article is to convey information - this pursuit is not assisted by punchy prose.

by MagicMoonlight7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It is trained on its own slop. They haven’t trained these models on books for three years at this point. Only on generated slop. (And RL slop upvotes/downvotes from users)

by rippeltippel14 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

The voice of several passages resembles ChatGPT very closely.