It's already technically possible for LLMs to generate all kinds of styles of text. In fact older models are better at it. It's the newer models that are nearly impossible to steer. This makes me less hopeful for the future. There is apparently some incentive for Claude and ChatGPT to lock in these very recognizable patterns.

AI writing is fine in a constrained space.

If you create a strict template, like a PowerPoint deck or tightly formatted report, the LM does a really, really good job. at populating that template with good data.

If you give it an open license to just create stuff, it’s always terrible for the general audience — but it may be fine for you or a small group that is familiar with the subject.

I compare it to fast food. An uneducated teenager is quite capable of putting together a McDonald’s lunch within the constraints of the system. If you let the kid loose in a kitchen designed for trained chefs, the result would not be a good lunch.

>Complaints of AI are like a form of friction that eventually goes away.

This. Already there is evolution in AI-related comments here.

For example, a year ago they often featured remarks like "I know AI when I see it: here are unmistakeable 'tells.'"

Then there would be a lively back-and-forth about the validity of the stated giveaways.

Such "How I know it's AI"-type comments no longer appear.

[flagged]

It is funny to me how slop enthusiasts argue from the past and the future to deny the present state.

"Slop is here to stay so you better get used to it because slop is inevitable and you will be left behind."

It is both already a cemented permanent presence and destined to arrive by an unbreakable prophecy at a date TBD.

Yes, that was a weird defense; essentially, he used it for the actual interesting parts of the article.

Interesting for me it's the opposite. I care about this so I let AI do it since LLM are better writers than the majority of people. I'm not so arrogant to think I'm a writer of that caliber.